BS2320 
M82.2 


£-U 


THE  PRESBYTERIAN 
AND    REFORMED    REVIEW 


No.  25— January,  1896. 


THE  BEGINNING  AND  GROWTH  OF  THE 
CANON  OP  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

OUR  LORD  and  His  apostles  were  accustomed  to  refer  to  the 
Jewish  Scriptures  as  to  a  well-known,  definite  body  of 
sacred  writings  that  had  been  handed  down  from  past  ages.  They 
assumed  that- there  was  agreement  among  the  people  of  the  Jews 
as  to  the  particular  books  that  constituted  these  Scriptures ;  and 
they  actually  quoted  from  the  great  majority  of  them  as  of 
unquestionable  authority  in  matters  of  doctrine  and  duty.  It 
could  not  occur  to  any  reader  of  the  New  Testament  that  in  the 
time  of  Christ  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  had  not  yet  been 
determined,  or  that  it  was  still  an  open  question  whether  certain 
books  should  be  received  into  it,  or  should  be  excluded  from  it. 
It  is  inconceivable,  too,  that  Josephus  could  have  written  as  he  has 
done  of  the  books  which  he  describes  as  "justly  believed  to  be 
divine"  and  held  to  be  most  sacred  by  all  Jews,*  if  the  rabbis  of 
his  time  had  felt  themselves  at  liberty  to  add  to,  or  to  take  away 
from  the  number  of  these  sacred  books.  When  Strack  wrote  his  arti- 
cle on  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament,f  he  could  affirm  that  there 
was  then  unanimity  among  critics  of  opposite  schools  in  regarding 
the  Canon  of  Josephus  as  embracing  neither  more  nor  less  than  the 
th'rty-nine  books  of  our  present  Hebrew  Bible.  He  attached  no 
importance,  as  bearing  on  the  extent  of  the  Canon,  to  the  discus- 
sions which  rabbis  of  the  first  century  engaged  in  with  respect  to 

*  Contra  Apion,  i,  8. 

fHerzog's  Real-Encyk.,  2d  ed.,  vii,  p.  428. 
1 


£>  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

certain  books,  as  Ecclesiastes,  the  Song  of  Solomon,  Esther  and 
Ezekiel.  These  discussions,  Strack  observes,  seem  to  have  been 
indulged  in  for  the  purpose  of  displaying  the  acuteness  of  the 
rabbis,  and  of  making  it  clear  that  the  authority  of  the  holy  books 
was  absolutely  certain.  Kautzsch,  too,  a  much  more  radical  critic 
of  the  Old  Testament  than  Strack,  decidedly  denies  that  the  dis- 
putes referred  to  involved  the  question  of  the  canonical  authority 
of  the  books  under  discussion.* 

In  speaking,  then,  of  the  formation  of  the  Canon  of  the  New- 
Testament,  we  are  fully  warranted  to  assume  the  previous  existence 
of  a  fixed  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament.  This  Old  Testament  our 
Lord  and  His  apostles  looked  upon  as  possessing  supreme  authority 
and  infallible.  "We  content  ourselves  with  appealing  to  two  famil- 
iar declarations  made  by  them  as  to  the  character  of  the  Scriptures 
in  the  hands  of  the  Jews.  One  is  the  statement  of  Christ  recorded 
in  John  x.  35,  "  The  Scripture  cannot  be  broken."  We  hold  it  to 
be  arbitrary  and  unjustifiable  to  limit  the  application  of  this  asser- 
tion to  the  particular  words  of  Scripture  that  had  just  been  quoted. 
Yet  Dr.  Sanday  admits  that  "  even  if  we  take  the  narrower  view 
and  restrict  the  saying  to  the  particular  passage,  it  would  hardly  be 
applied  to  that  unless  it  represented  a  general  principle  which 
might  be  applied  to  other  passages  as  well."f  And  the  same  writer 
acknowledges  in  regard  to  the  classic  declaration  of  Paul  in  2  Tim. 
iii.  16  that,  even  adopting  the  Revised  Version,  "  Every  Scripture 
inspired  of  God  is  also  profitable  for  teaching,"  etc.,  we  are  still 
"  obliged  to  interpret  the  words  by  the  current  conception  of  what 
Scriptures  were  so  inspired,  and  we  should  find  that  it  included  all, 
or  very  nearly  all,  those  which  form  our  present  Old  Testament." 

"We  may  make  another  quotation  from  Dr.  Sanday  in  regard  to 
the  formation  of  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament.  He  tells 
us  that  it  was  "  really  the  process  by  which  the  writings  of  the 
New  Testament  came  to  be  placed  on  the  same  footing  with  those 
of  the  Old.";}:    "Wej^adjlvadm^^  place  a  writ- 

ing of  the  New  Testament  on  the  same  footing  wlth~  those  of  frTe 
Old  was  to  declare  it  canonical.  But  we  demur  to  what  is  implied 
in  Dr.  Sanday's  statement,  that  writings  of  the  New  Testament 
were  not  in  the  age  in  which  they  appeared  placed  on  a  line  with 
the  Old;  and  that  it  was  only  gradually  that  any  of  them  "caie 
to  be"  so  highly  appreciated.  For  it  seems  to  us  a  very  plain 
matter  that  a  writing  that  had  not  a  just  and  avowed  claim  to  be 
regarded   as  divine  and   authoritative   on   its   first   promulgation, 

*  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1892,  pp.  188,  189.  See  also  Buhl's  Canon  and  ,rext 
of  the  Old  Testament,  p.  25,  etc. 

^Inspiration,  p.  88.  %Ibid.,  p.  4. 


THE  CANON  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  3 

could  not  rightly  acquire  such  a  claim  in  auy  subsequent  time. 
The  notion  of  a  writing's  title  to  inspiration  being  held  in  abeyance 
for  generations  and  finding  recognition  only  after  a  long  time,  is  not 
to  be  entertained.  * 

Here  we  have  to  put  ourselves  in  decided  opposition  to  some 
of  the  most  influential  writers  on  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment in  the  present  day.  Thus  Bishop  Westcott  begins  his  work 
on  The  Canon  of  the  New  Testament  by  declaring  his  design  "  to 
trace  the  gradual  recognition  of  a  written  apostolic  rule  as 
authoritative  and  divine,  to  observe  the  gradual  equalization 
of  the  '  Gospels  and  Epistles '  with  the  '  Law  and  the  Prophets.'  " 
Again  he  writes  :f  ';  It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  idea  of  the  inspi- 
ration of  the  New  Testament,  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  maintained 
now,  was  the  growth  of  time  ;  "  and  he  goes  on  to  affirm  that  the 
Old  Testament  was  the  only  Bible  of  the  Christian  Church  for  two 
or  three  generations.  Prof.  Zahn,  of  Erlangen,  too,  maintains  that, 
it  was  the  actual  use  of  the  writings  of  our  present  New  Testament^ 
and  the  authority  which  they  acquired  in  the  life  and  public  wor- 
ship of  the  Church  by  this  customary  use,  that  eventually  sur- 
rounded these  writings  with  the  nimbus  of  holiness  and  generated 
conceptions  of  their  supernatural  origin  and  of  their  dignity  far 
beyond  that  of  all  other  literature.  He  affirms  that  it  was  owing 
to  this  practical  application  of  these  writings  in  life  and  especially 
in  worship,  and  not  owing  to  any  preconceived  opinion  of  the 
inspiration  of  their  apostolic  authors,  that  the  New  Testament  of  the 
Church  was  brought  into  being,  and  that  its  separate  books  found 
entrance  into  this  sacred  collection.^:     Prof.  Weiss  allows  himself 

*  "I  suppose  I  am  right  in  saying  that  we  mean  by  inspiration  the  divine  in- 
fluence exerted  upon  the  minds  of  the  writers  of  the  Bible,  which  led  them 
to  choose  and  shape  their  material  so  as  to  make  the  result  the  authoritative 
rule  of  faith  and  practice,"  says  Prof.  H.  P.  Smith  in  his  Biblical  Scholarship 
and  Inspiration,  p.  72.  This  definition,  though  defective,  professes  to  give,  as 
the  result  of  the  divine  influence  exerted,  an  authoritative  rule  of  faith  and  prac- 
tice in  the  several  books  of  the  Bible  as  they  came  from  the  hands  of  their 
inspired  authors.  It  is  fundamentally  at  variance  with  the  theory  that  the  New 
Testament  was  not  an  authoritative  rule  of  faith  and  practice  till  the  latter  half 
of  the  second  century,  when,  we  are  told,  authority  was  first  ascribed  by  the 
Church  to  the  books  contained  in  it. 

f  Canon,  2d  ed.,  p.  49. 

X  "Nicht  eine  vorgefasste  Meinung  von  dem  unterscheidenden  Character 
bestimmter  Schriften,  nicht  ein  Dogma  von  der  Inspiration  der  apostolischen 
Schriftsteller  hat  das  N.  T.  der  Kirche  geschaffen  und  den  einzelnen  Biichern 
den  Eintritt  in  diese  Sammlung  erschlossen  oder  versperrt,  sondern  umgekehrt, 
die  thatsachliche  Anwendung  und  die  durch  das  Herkommen  begrundete 
Geltung  der  Schriften  im  Leben  und  insbesondere  ini  Gottesdienst  der  Kirche 
hat  sie  mit  dem  Nimbus  der  Heiligkeit  umgeben  und  hat  die  Vorstellungen  von 
einem   iibernaturlichen  Ursprung  und   von  einer  alle  sonstige  Literatur  weit 


4  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

to  say,  "  It  is  certain  that  until  after  the  middle  of  the  second  cen- 
tury no  other  Canon  was  set  up  in  the  Church  than  the  Word  of 
God  [in  the  Old  Testament]."*  Prof.  Harnack  ascribes  to  the 
conflict  of  the  Church  with  Gnosticism  and  Montanism  a  determin- 
ing influence  in  the  formation  of  the  New  Testament,  and  he  makes 
its  recognition  as  of  equal  authority  with  the  Old  a  suddenly 
emerging  phenomenon  of  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century. 
The  Church,  he  concedes,  had  holy  Christian  writings  long  pre- 
viously, but  they  were  not  in  our  sense  a  New  Testament  even  in 
an  embryonic  state,  not  a  collection  of  writings  esteemed  of  like 
dignity  with  the  Old  Testament  and  regarded  as  bequeathed  by 
the  apostles  to  be  the  Canon  of  Catholic  doctrine  and  disci pline.f 

hinter  sich  lassenden  AViirde  derselben  erzeugt  "  (Zahn,  Gesclrichte  des  Kanons 
des  N  T,  i,  p.  83).  Zahn  writes  again  (Gesch.  des  Kanons  des  N.  T,  i,  pp.  436, 
437):  "Certainly  it  is  not  without  interest  and  not  altogether  unimportant  for 
the  history  of  the  Canon,  to  settle  when  first  in  the  Church  the  idea  of  theop- 
neusty  was  attached  to  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament.  Every  reflecting 
man  must  say  to  himself  that  this  presupposes  a  long  habit  of  using  these  writ- 
ings in  the  Church  and  of  placing  them  in  divine  service  on  a  par  with  the 
writings  of  the  Old  Testament.  For  how  else  could  that  idea  have  arisen  ? 
There  were  as  yet  no  Synods,  still  less  General  Councils,  at  which  dogmas  were 

fixed How  shall  we  then  determine  since  when  the  writings  of  the  New 

Testament  were  in  the  thought  and  language  of  the  Church  put  on  a  level  with 
the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  in  respect  to  supernatural  origin  and  infalli- 
bility ?  "  Now  Zahn  himself  informs  us  that  the  very  earliest  Christian  literature 
outside  of  the  New  Testament  presents  this  view  of  the  teaching  of  the 
apostles:  "As  God  through  Christ,  so  did  Christ  act  and  speak  through  the 
apostles.  Thereby  the  doctrines  and  instructions  of  the  apostles  were  set  on  a 
level  with  those  which  Christ  immediately,  and  which  God  through  the 
prophets,  communicated"  (Gesch.,  u.  s.  w.,  i,  p.  804).  Here  Zahu  maintains 
that  the  first  generation  of  Christians  already  held  that  the  words  of  the  apostles 
which  we  have  in  the  New  Testament  were  as  divinely  inspired  and  as  authori- 
tative as  those  of  the  prophets.  Zahn  describes  the  apostles  as,  in  the  view  of 
the  apostolic  fathers,  "authorities  for  the  present  and  all  the  future  of  the 
Church"  (ubi  supra,  p.  808).  He  maintains  (p.  810)  that  "  the  dead  apostles 
could  be  an  authority,  owned  as  binding  and  in  living  force  in  all  parts  of  the 
Church,  only  if  everywhere  writings  were  received  and  listened  to  in  the 
Church  in  which  every  one  was  convinced  that  he  heard  the  voice  of  the  apos- 
tles." Clement  of  Rome  expressly  attributes  the  inspiration  of  the  Spirit  to  the 
First  Epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Corinthians.  He  wrote  it  "  iit  a\rtdsia<; 
TtveufiaTtxaJg-"  The  words,  "of  a  truth,"  before  "spiritually,"  are  emphatic, 
and  forbid  our  taking  this  expression,  "spiritually,"  as  signifying  less  than  that 
the  Epistle  was  written  under  full  inspiration  of  the  Spirit,  or  "in  words  which 
the  Spirit  taught,"  to  employ  the  language  of  Paul  himself  in  the  same  Epistle 
respecting  the  Spirit's  influence  on  him  as  a  teacher  (1  Cor.  ii.  13). 

*  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  pp.  32,  33. 

•)■  Das  Neue  Testament  urn  das  Jahr  200,  p.  111.  A  keen  discussion  has  been 
carried  on  by  Zahn  and  Harnack  on  the  history  of  the  New  Testament  Canon. 
The  points  of  agreement  and  difference  between  the  two  distinguished  scholars 
are  drawn  out  by  Koppel  in  an  article,  "DerZahn-Harnack'scheStreit,"  u.  s.  w., 
in  the  first  Heft  of  the  Studien  und  Kriliken  for  1891. 


THE  CANON  OF  TEE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  *> 

Harnack  has  aggressive  followers  in  the  United  States ;  and  his 
view  that  the  conception  of  an  apostolic  Canon  of  Scripture  was 
unknown  to  the  primitive  Church  is  one  with  which  we  are  becom- 
ing quite  familiar  on  this  side  of  the  A  tlantic.  To  all  these  theories 
we  oppose  the  witness  of  the  New  Testament  and  of  the  early 
Church. 

"We  must  guard  against  being  misunderstood.  Any  one  who  has 
studied  the  Church  history  of  Eusebius,  or  who  has  read  even  a 
popular  treatise  on  the  Canon  of  Scripture,  is  well  aware  that  it  is 
not  to  be  maintained  that  there  is  equal  evidence  that  every  book 
in  our  present  New  Testament  was  recognized  everywhere  in  the 
Church  Catholic  during  the  first  half  of  the  second  century  as  an 
authoritative  rule.  The  New  Testament  was  not  published  at  once 
as  a  complete  whole.  Its  books  were  separately  written,  in  sundry 
places  and  at  sundry  times,  till  the  last  writing  of  the  Apostle  John 
appeared  near  the  close  of  the  first  century.  From  the  nature  of  the 
case,  time  and  careful  and'  extensive  inquiry  and  intercommunica- 
tion between  churches  remote  from  each  other  were  needed  in  order 
to  ascertain  precisely  the  full  number  of  the  writings  which  the 
Lord  had  provided  for  the  Church  of  the  New  Covenant.  But  the 
belief  in  a  new,  inspired  rule  of  faith  and  duty  additional  to  that 
furnished  by  the  Old  Testament,  and  equally  deserving  with  it  of 
credence  and  obedience,  was  in  the  Church  from  the  time  that  the 
name  of  a  Church  was  first  applied  to  the  followers  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  We  emphatically  deny  the  statement  of  Bishop 
Westcott  that  "  the  Old  Testament  was  for  two  or  three  generations 
a  complete  Bible,  interpreted  in  the  light  of  the  Gospel."  There 
were,  indeed,  early  Christian  writers,  like  the  Pseudo-Barnabas, 
who  allegorized  the  Old  Testament  ad  libitum,  and  who  could  find 
in  any  part  of  it  the  mysteries  of  the  Gospel.  In  this  sense  they 
could  be  said  to  have  a  complete  Bible  in  the  Old  Testament.  And 
the  same  might  be  affirmed  of  allegorizing  interpreters  of  later 
ages,  who  read  into  the  Old  Testament  all  the  doctrines  of  the 
New.  But  it  can  be  shown  that  Christ  placed  His  disciples  under 
a  new  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  and  that  this  new  rule  of  faith  was 
not  only  a  spoken,  but  also  a  written  word,  revered  as  Scripture  and 
actually  designated  as  Scripture,  even  in  the  days  of  the  apostles. 
If  this  can  be  established,  then  it  is  a  very  grave  error  to  teach  that 
"  the  idea  of  the  inspiration  of  the  New  Testament,  in  the  sense  in 
which  it  is  maintained  now,  was  the  growth  of  time" — time  that 
may  have  extended  beyond  the  first  century  of  the  Christian 
Church.  We  would  not  affirm,  as  a  matter  capable  of  explicit 
proof,  that  any  of  th'e  churches  planted  by  the  apostles  knew,  in 
the  year  when  John  (the  last  of  them)  died,  where  were  all  the 


b  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

writings  that  now  constitute  our  New  Testament.  Still  we  would 
not  dare  to  assert  that  in  no  church  of  that  time  did  such 
knowledge  exist.  But  we  do  maintain  that  the  belief  in  the  in- 
spiration of  a  large  portion  of  the  New  Testament  as  the  infalli- 
ble Word  of  God  was  then  as  full  and  strong  and  clear  and  defin- 
ite in  the  minds  of  enlightened  Christians  as  it  is  now  in  the  minds 
of  such. 

It  might  well  be  accounted  strange  if  those  who  first  received  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament,  and  for  whose  instruction  they  were 
primarily  written,  were  not  taught  to  estimate  them  at  their  proper 
worth,  and  if  their  transcendent  value  as  God's  inspired  Scripture 
should  have  been  suffered  to  remain  concealed  from  the  Christian 
Church  for  a  century  or  longer.  We  agree  so  far  with  Zahn  as  to 
admit  that  the  habitual  public  and  private  employment  of  the 
writings  now  in  the  New  Testament  for  purposes  of  religious  edifi- 
cation and  worship  would  lead  to  a  better  practical  appreciation  of 
their  incomparable  excellence.  But  before  they  were  hallowed  by 
such  long  usage  they  were,  as  we  hope  to  show,  received  as  divine  and 
authoritative.  Such  usage  did  not  originate  the  belief  in  their  in- 
spiration, but  only  strengthened  and  confirmed  this  belief.  It  was 
natural,  too,  for  orthodox  Christian  teachers  to  quote  the  Christian 
Scriptures  far  more  freely  in  their  controversy  with  heretics,  such  as 
Gnostics  and  Montanists,  than  they  felt  themselves  at  liberty  to  do 
when  seeking  to  persuade  Jews  and  the  heathen.  In  dealing  with 
these  latter  classes  they  could  set  forth  in  general  terms  the  unri- 
valed moral  and  religious  teaching  of  Christianity.  But  to  the 
particular  books  of  the  New  Testament  it  was  not  needful  to  refer 
them.  The  great  proof  relied  on  for  convincing  those  altogether 
outside  the  pale  of  Christianity  was  the  fulfillment  of  the  prophe- 
cies of  the  Old  Testament  respecting  Christ.  Hence  in  the  days 
when  the  conflict  of  the  Church  was  chiefly  with  Jew  and  Gentile 
unbelievers,  the  Old  Testament  was  the  great  armory  of  Christian 
apologists.  But  when,  at  a  later  period,  the  most  formidable  con- 
flict was  with  those  who  called  themselves  Christians,  and  who 
admitted  the  New  Testament  either  in  whole  or  in  part,  then  it 
was  the  New  Testament  that  was  properly  appealed  to  as  the  judge 
of  controversies.  Then  its  statements  were  abundantly  and  specifi- 
cally quoted,  as  was  required  by  the  exigencies  of  the  new  contro- 
versies that  had  arisen.  But  the  men  who,  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
second  century,  thus  employ  the  New  Testament  in  confuting  heresy, 
do  not  appeal  to  it  as  if  its  authority  had  only  lately  come  to  be 
recognized.  They  appeal  to  it  as  that  which  was  from  the  begin- 
ning the  rule  of  faith  in  the  churches  and  which  had  been  as  such 
handed  down  from  the  apostles  and  faithfully  preserved.     We  may 


THE  CANON  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  i 

make  this  manifest  here  by  a  quotation  from  Irenseus,*  postponing 
the  calling  of  other  witnesses.  How  could  the  venerable  Irenasus, 
whose  integrity  is  unimpeachable,  have  made  the  following  state- 
ments if,  as  some  of  our  critics  will  have  it,  the  writings  of  the  New 
Testament  were  not  invested  with  canonical  authority  till  he  was 
a  man  of  mature  years  ?  In  the  conclusion  of  the  Preface  to  the 
third  book  of  his  work  Against  Heresies,  he  thus  writes :  "  The 
Church  has  received  from  the  apostles  and  imparted  to  her  sons  the 
only  true  and  life-giving  faith.  For  the  Lord  of  all  gave  the 
power  of  the  Gospel  to  His  apostles,  through  whom  also  we  have 
known  the  truth,  that  is,  the  doctrine  of  the  Son  of  God ;  to  whom 
also  did  the  Lord  declare :  '  He  that  heareth  you  heareth  me  ;  and 
he  that  despiseth  you  despiseth  me  and  Him  that  sent  me.' "  And 
Irenasus  begins  the  third  book  with  these  words:  ""We  have 
learned  from  none  others  the  plan  of  our  salvation  than  from  those 
through  whom  the  Gospel  has  come  down  to  us,  which  they  did  at 
one  time  proclaim  in  public,  and  at  a  later  period,  by  the  will  of 
God,  handed  down  to  us  in  the  Scriptures  to  be  the  foundation  and 
pillar  of  our  faith." 

But  let  us  now  go  back  to  the  New  Testament  itself  for  the  proof 
that  it  stood  in  the  Church  from  the  beginning  on  an  equal  footing 
with  the  Old  Testament.f     The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  opens  with 

*  "Irenseus,"  says  Ligktfoot,  "is  the  first  extant  writer  in  whom,  from  the 
nature  of  his  work,  we  have  a  right  to  expect  explicit  information  on  the  subject 

of  the  Canon His  work  is  the  first  controversial  treatise  addressed  to 

Christians  on  questions  of  Christian  doctrine  where  the  appeal  lies  to  Christian 
documents."  The  extraordinary  attempt  of  Dr.  Werner  (in  Gehhardt  und  Har- 
nack's  Texteund  Untersuchungen,  Band  vi,  "  Der  Paulinismus  des  Irenseus")  to 
show  that  Irenseus  did  not  regard  the  Epistles  of  Paul  as  canonical  Scripture 
led  us  to  go  through  Irenseus  with  some  care  to  see  what  truth  there  might  be 
in  "Werner's  contention.  Out  of  many  quotations  of  Paul's  Epistles  in  Irenseus 
which  we  noted,  and  which  are  clearly  adduced  as  "Scripture,"  it  may  suffice 
here  to  give  one,  Gal.  v.  21,  which  thus  appears  in  the  work  Against  Heresies, 
Bk.  i,  vi,  3  :  "Wherefore  also  it  comes  to  pass  that  the  'most  perfect'  among 
them  addict  themselves  without  fear  to  all  those  kinds  of  forbidden  deeds  of 
which  the  Scriptures  assure  us  that  'they  who  do  such  things  shall  not  inherit 
the  kingdom  of  God.'"  In  Bk.  i,  chap,  iii,  sec.  4,  four  quotations  from  Paul's 
Epistles  (two  from  Romans,  one  from  Ephesians,  and  one  from  Colossians)  are 
expressly  said  to  be  "found  in  Scripture." 

f  That  in  2  Pet.  iii.  15-17  the  Epistles  of  Paul  are  treated  as  on  equality  with 
the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  is  to  us  clear,  in  spite  of  all  that  has  been 
recently  said  to  the  contrary.  Only  on  this  supposition  is  the  "wresting"  of 
them  complained  of  intelligible.  The  fact  that  they  were  abused  and  perverted 
to  evil  purposes  implies  that  they  were  regarded  as  sacred  and  authoritative. 
Before  and  during  the  apostolic  age,  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  were  per- 
verted ;  and  there  are  indications  even  in  the  Epistles  of  Paul  that  they,  too, 
were  misinterpreted  and  misapplied.  But  tbe  critics  object  to  our  making  quo- 
tations from  2  Peter  as  a  part  of  the  New  Testament.  It  is  the  one  book  which 
Dr.  Sanday,  though  very  hesitatingly,  would  exclude  from  the  Canon.     We  do 


o  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW 

this  declaration :  "God,  having  of  old  time  spoken  unto  the  fathers 
in  the  prophets  by  divers  portions  and  in  divers  manners,  hath  at 
the  end  of  these  days  spoken  unto  us  in  His  Son."  After  a  full  and 
impressive  setting  forth  of  the  superangelic  and  divine  glory  of  the 
Son,  the  revealer  of  the  new  dispensation,  the  second  chapter  begins 
with  this  exhortation  and  appeal :  "  Therefore  we  ought  to  give 
the  more  earnest  heed  to  the  things  that  were  heard,  lest  haply  we 
drift  away  from  them.  For  if  the  word  spoken  through  angels 
proved  steadfast,  and  every  transgression  and  disobedience  received 
a  just  recompense  of  reward,  how  shall  we  escape  if  we  neglect  so 
great  salvation,  which  having  at  the  first  been  spoken  through  the 
Lord,  was  confirmed  unto  us  by  them  that  heard,  God  also  bearing 
witness  with  them,  both  by  signs  and  wonders,  and  by  manifold 
powers,  and  by  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  according  to  His  own  will." 
We  need  not  multiply  testimonies  as  to  the  sacredness  of  our  Lord's 
words  from  the  very  time  they  were  first  uttered  (Matt.  vii.  26  ; 
John  xii.  48).  They  were  the  words  of  God  (John  iii.  34).  And 
what  at  the  first  began  to  be  spoken  by  the  Lord  was,  after  his 
removal,  proclaimed  by  those  who  had  been  with  Him  and  heard 
Him.  And  their  teaching  had  the  most  signal  and  abundant  divine 
attestation ;  and  as  great  obligation  to  believe  and  obey  it  rested  on 
those  who  heard  them  as  had  rested  on  those  who  listened  to  the 
living  voice  of  Christ  Himself  (Heb.  ii.  1-4 ;  Matt.  x.  40). 

Dr.  Harnack  concedes  that  "  what  the  Master  had  said  was  from 
the  beginning  considered  holy."  *  But  here  is  a  very  striking  and 
instructive  fact.     While  "  what  the  Master  had  said  "  is  very  often 

not  need  its  testimony  for  our  argument,  and  therefore  refer  to  it  only  in  this 
footnote.  Dr.  Warfield  maintains  the  canonicity  of  2  Peter  in  an  article  in 
the  Southern  Presbyterian  Review  for  January,  1882,  which  Dr.  Sanday  admits 
to  be  "very  able."  New  historical  evidence  of  its  genuineness  has  been  lately 
brought  to  light.  Nosgen  ( Geschichte  der  neutest.  Offenbarung,  2.  Band,  p.  46) 
has  good  remarks  on  its  relation  to  1  Peter.  But  he  does  not  rest  the  decision  of 
the  case  on  the  weighing  of  critical  niceties.  "The  question  is  whether  we  can 
assume  in  a  Christian  of  such  moral  strictness  and  of  such  lively  antipathy  to 
all  liars  and  cunningly  invented  fables,  that  he  has  put  on  the  mask  of  an  eye- 
witness and  apostle  of  Christ  in  order  not  only  to  say  in  his  name  what  he  was  set- 
ting forth,  which  in  itself  was  very  striking  and  powerful,  but  to  invest  it  with 
apostolic  authority."  This  is  truly  hard  to  believe.  We  have  of  late  read 
2  Peter  frequently ;  and  every  fresh  perusal  only  confirms  our  faith  in  its 
divine  inspiration.  We  should  like  to  see  the  identity  of  the  basal  principles  and 
circle  of  ideas  of  1  and  2  Peter,  which  the  superficial  reader  does  not  notice, 
fully  brought  out.  It  impresses  us  profoundly.  Dr.  Edwin  A.  Abbott's  attempt 
to  detect  evidence  that  2  Peter  borrows  from  Josephus  made  only  a  pass- 
ing sensation.  Dr.  Salmon  was  justified  in  saying  that  the  "discovery  was 
merely  that  of  a  mare's  nest."  Few  chapters  of  the  epistles  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment have  influenced  Christian  life  and  sentiment  more  than  the  first  and  third 
chapters  of  2  Peter. 
*  Outlines  of  the  Hist,  of  Dogma,  p.  91. 


THE  CANON  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  9 

expressly  quoted  in  the  earliest  Christian  literature  outside  the  New 
Testament,  it  is  very  seldom  referred  to  in  the  New  Testament 
itself  (though  everywhere  implied),  save  in  the  four  Gospels.  This 
remarkable  phenomenon  is  most  satisfactorily  explained  if  we 
attribute  it  to  the  consciousness  of  the  apostles,  who  wrote  the  other 
books  of  the  New  Testament,  that  Christ  still  spoke  in  them  (2  Cor. 
xiii.  3)  and  that  their  words  deserved  to  be  looked  on  as  the  "  words 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ"  (1  Tim.  vi.  3)  and  to  be  received  with 
equal  reverence.  As  it  was  in  the  plan  of  our  Lord  that  all  things 
whatsoever  He  commanded  should  be  taught  to  all  nations,  and  that 
His  religion  should  endure  even  to  the  end  of  the  world  (Matt, 
xxviii.  19,  20),  it  was  an  easy  and  natural  thing  to  transfer  the  same 
deference  to  the  authentic  report  of  what  He  had  taught  that  was 
due  to  the  utterances  of  His  living  voice.  Divine  authority  must 
from  the  very  first  have  been  ascribed  to  the  Gospels.  They  must, 
without  delay,  have  been  placed  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  his- 
torical books  of  the  Old  Testament,  because  they  purported  to  be 
the  vehicle  of  a  more  perfect  revelation  (Heb.  i ;  2  Cor.  iii).  The 
apostle  John  gave  forth  his  written  record  of  the  life  of  our  Lord 
as  an  adequate  basis  for  believing  in  Him  and  for  attaining  eternal 
life  in  His  name  (John  xx.  31).  A  book  recognized  by  thoss  who 
received  it  as  serving  such  a  purpose,  and  as  coming  from  an  apostle, 
would  assuredly  not  have  to  wait  for  a  single  generation  to  be  sur- 
rounded with  the  "  nimbus  of  holiness."  Again,  the  Apocalypse  of 
John  is  professedly  a  prophetic  book  (Rev.  i.  3,  x.  7,  xxii.  6,  7,  9, 
18,  19).  "The  strongest  language  which  is  found  in  the  older 
Scriptures  the  author  uses  and  applies  to  his  own  book  "  (Sanday). 
The  Apocalypse  is  one  of  the  few  books  of  the  New  Testament 
which  the  Tubingen  school  allowed  to  be  genuine.  Justin  Martyr 
describes  its  author  as  "John,  one  of  the  apostles  of  Christ,  who 
prophesied  by  a  revelation  that  was  made  to  him."*  Here,  then, 
is  a  book  of  the  New  Testament  which  must  from  the  first  have 
been  believed  to  be  equally  inspired  with  the  prophetical  books  of 
the  Old  Testament  by  those  who  accepted  it  as  genuine.  This 
cannot  be  doubted  by  any  one  who  considers  the  references  to  the 
claims  of  the  book  itself,  which  we  have  given  above,  and  it  over- 
turns the  theory  of  those  who  maintain  that  till  the  closing  part  of 
the  second  century  the  Old  Testament  had  a  position  of  dignity  and 
divine  authority  in  the  Church  to  which  no  writing  of  the  New 
Testament  might  aspire. 

John  prefixes  his  name  to  his  book  of  prophecies,  as  do  all  the 
prophets  of  the  Old  Testament  to  their  prophetic  writings.  But 
John's  name  does  not  introduce  his  history  of  the  life  of  Christ. 

*  Dialogue  with  Trypho,  c.  81. 


10  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

Herein,  too,  John  adheres  to  the  analogy  of  the  Old  Testament, 
whose  historical  writings,  with  the  exception  of  the  Book  of 
Nehemiah,  are  anonymous.  It  is  important  to  bear  in  mind  that 
the  historical  books  in  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the 
hands  of  the  first  Christians  were  treated  as  equally  divine  and 
authoritative  with  the  strictly  prophetic.  And  they  who  were 
familiar  with  such  a  Canon  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Covenant  would 
be  prepared  to  receive  historical  books  as  a  part  of  the  revelation 
of  the  New  Covenant.  John's  history  of  Jesus  was  known  to  be 
true  (John  xxi.  24),  and  it  claims  to  be  written  with  extreme 
accuracy,  as  every  careful  reader  must  note.  Regarding  it  as  com- 
ing from  one  who  was  esteemed  to  be  both  an  apostle  and  a 
prophet,  with  the  transcendent  facts  and  words  which  it  relates,  how 
could  a  discerning  Christian  of  the  early  Church  think  of  placing  it 
in  an  inferior  category  to  that  of  the  historical  books  of  the  Old 
Testament  ?  It  is  admitted  that  books  of  the  New  Testament  were 
read  together  with  the  Old  in  divine  worship  from  an  early  date. 
It  ought  not  to  have  required  this  practice  to  prevail  for  a  long 
time — a  century  or  a  decade,  or  even  a  year— to  enable  an  earnest 
spiritual  man  to  see  that  the  New  Testament  was  as  deserving  as 
the  Old  to  be  regarded  as  the  Word  of  God,  or  Holy  Scripture. 

But  is  there  actual  evidence  that  the  Gospels  were  at  first  so  re- 
garded ?  Prof.  Stapfer,  of  the  Protestant  Faculty  of  Theology  in 
Paris,  in  an  opening  lecture  on  the  exegesis  of  the  Gospel  of  Luke 
delivered  in  1891,  made  the  assertion  that  Luke  would  have  been 
"  surprised  to  learn  that  his  books  would  be  one  day  considered  as 
infallible,  and  added  with  others  to  the  sacred  code  of  the  Old 
Testament."  Similar  language  has  been  employed  by  other  critics. 
But  notwithstanding  their  scornful  tone  of  confidence,  it  is  possible 
to  produce  conclusive  proof  that  the  very  Gospel  of  Luke  was  con- 
sidered as  infallible  Scripture  in  Luke's  own  lifetime  by  so  com- 
petent an  authority  as  the  apostle  Paul,  whose  most  faithful  com- 
panion Luke  was  (2  Tim.  iv.  11),  and  who  of  all  men  known  to  us 
was  the  most  likely  to  have  been  early  acquainted  with  the  third 
Gospel.  A  careful  study  of  the  words  of  Paul  in  1  Tim.  v.  18,  has 
fully  satisfied  our  mind  that  he  there  quotes  as  Scripture  the  saying 
of  our  Lord  recorded  in  Luke  x.  7.*  In  the  verse  in  1  Tim.  v,  he 
must  be  held,  according  to  all  analogy,  to  make  a  double  quotation 
of  Scripture.  The  verse  is:  "  For  the  Scripture  saith,  Thou  shalt  not 
muzzle  the  ox  when  he  treadeth  out  the  corn  :  and,  The  labourer  is 
worthy  of  his  hire."  Compare  this  language  with  our  Lord's  com- 
bination of  two  passages  of  Scripture  in  Matt.  xv.  4 :  "  For  God 
said,  Honour  thy  father  and  thy  mother ;  and,  He  that  speaketh 

*  Cf.  Presb.  and  Ref.  Review,  January,  1895,  p.  113. 


THE  CANON  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  11 

evil  of  father  or  mother,  let  him  die  the  death."  Here  the  first 
saying  of  Scripture,  "  Honour  thy  father  and  thy  mother,"  is  taken 
from  Ex.  xx.  12  ;  the  second  is  taken  from  Ex.  xxi.  17.  The  two 
are  joined  by  the  connective  "  and."  The  quotation  of  a  merely 
human  judgment,  or  proverb,  in  the  clause  beginning  with  the  con- 
junction "  and  "  would  be  felt  to  be  incongruous  and  discordant. 
We  instinctively  expect  to  find  a  second  Scripture  quoted  ;  and  on 
discovering  like  words  in  Ex.  xxi.  17,  we  unhesitatingly  conclude 
that  there  was  an  intended  reference  to  this  place.  The  same  re- 
marks, mutatis  mutandis,  may  be  made  on  Acts  i.  20,  where  also 
"  and  "  stands  between  two  Scriptural  quotations.  So  also  in  Eom. 
ix.  33,  and  in  James  ii.  23.  If  any  words  at  all  resembling  the  say- 
ing, "  The  labourer  is  worthy  of  his  hire,"  could  be  discovered  in 
the  Old  Testament,  it  is  certain  that  commentators  would  not  dis- 
pute that  the  "  and  "  in  1  Tim.  v.  18  introduces  a  second  quota- 
tion of  Scripture.*  It  does  introduce  words  which  are  exactly  the 
same  as  a  saying  of  the  Lord  Jesus  recorded  in  Luke  x.  7.  And  it 
does  look  like  prejudice  to  refuse  to  acknowledge  that  this  saying 
is  quoted  by  Paul  as  Scripture  on  a  par  with  the  law  of  Moses. 
That  Paul  really  does  this  seems  to  us  placed  beyond  a  doubt  by 
comparing  his  argument  in  1  Cor.  ix.  9-14,  on  behalf  of  the  same 
cause  for  which  he  wrote  1  Tim.  v.  18.  In  that  argument  he 
quotes  as  "  written  in  the  law  of  Moses"  (Deut.  xx.  4),  "  Thou  shalt 
not  muzzle  the  ox  when  he  treadeth  out  the  corn,"  as  sanctioning 
the  principle  that  they  who  devote  themselves  to  the  ministry  of 
the  Word  should  be  supported  by  the  Church.  After  justifying  his 
application  of  this  passage  of  the  law,  and  further  illustrating  the 
equity  of  his  contention,  he  finally  clenches  his  argument  by  this 
decisive  allegation  (v.  14),  "  Even  so  did  the  Lord  ordain  that  they 
which  preach  the  Gospel  should  live  of  the  Gospel."  Here,  as  in 
1  Cor.  vii.  10,  Paul  refers  to  what  the  Lord  Jesus  had  ordained  dur- 
ing His  earthly  ministry ;  as  is  pointed  out  by  the  best  commentators. 
Both  in  Matt.  x.  10  and  Luke  x.  7,  we  find  this  particular  ordi- 
nance of  the  Lord  recorded.  Luke  has  the  exact  words  which  meet 
us  in  1  Tim.  v.  18,  while  Matthew  has,  "  The  labourer  is  worthy 
of  his  foody  It  is  conceded  on  all  hands  that  Luke's  Gospel  has 
more  affinity  with  Paul's  forms  of  thought  and  expression  than 
Matthew's  Gospel  has  ;  and  there  is  internal  evidence  of  Paul's  in- 
fluence on  its  composition.  Hence  not  without  reason  is  it  called 
the  Pauline  Gospel.     The  fact  of  Paul's  influence  on  Luke  is  also 

*  An  illustration  ex  contrario  is  seen  in  1  Cor.  xv.  45.  If  after  the  clause, 
"The  first  Adam  became  a  living  soul,"  an  "and  "  followed,  we  should  be  led 
to  regard  the  last  clause,  "The  last  Adam  became  a  life-giving  spirit,"  as  also 
a  quotation  of  Scripture.     But  the  two  clauses  are  not  thus  connected. 


12  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

strongly  attested  by  ancient  Christian  authors.  We  are,  therefore, 
to  seek  the  record  of  Paul's  reference  to  our  Lord's  ordinance  in 
Luke  rather  than  in  Matthew.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  there  is  a  per- 
fect coincidence  between  Luke  x.  7  and  1  Tim.  v.  18.  Here,  then, 
are  very  striking  and  significant  agreements  in  1  Cor.  ix  and  1  Tim. 
v.  Both  quote  Deut.  xx.  4,  for  the  same  purpose,  and  make  an  ap- 
plication of  it  which  is  not  obvious  and  which  extends  its  meaning 
beyond  the  letter  of  the  precept.  We  fully  admit  that  the  principle 
lying  at  the  basis  of  the  injunction  in  Deut.  xx.  4  warrants  the  use 
which  Paul  makes  of  the  injunction.  But  still  it  is  a  very  peculiar 
use  of  the  text,  and  one  not  likely  to  occur  to  any  other  person. 
And  this  singular  employment  of  a  saying  primarily  and  im- 
mediately relating  to  oxen  is  combined  in  1  Cor.  ix  with  a  refer- 
ence to  a  saying  of  our  Lord  respecting  the  support  of  his  ministers. 
When  we  find  in  1  Tim.  v  the  same  use  of  the  same  Old  Testament 
text  combined  with  the  very  words  of  our  Lord's  declaration  in 
Luke  x.  7,  respecting  the  right  of  ministers  of  the  Word  to  be  main- 
tained, how  can  we  say  that  these  words  in  1  Timothy  are  quoted,  not 
as  the  words  of  the  Lord,  but  merely  as  a  proverb  or  moral  maxim 
which  commends  itself  to  our  sense  of  justice  ?  When  we  have  once 
established  that  Paul  had  in  writing  (1  Cor.  ix.  14),  the  words,  "The 
labourer  is  worthy  of  his  hire,"  fixed  in  his  mind  as  a  saying  of 
Christ,  we  cannot  think  of  him  repeating  these  words  without  re- 
membering that  they  were  the  words  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  The 
words,  too,  when  presented  as  an  utterance  of  the  Lord,  would  be 
seen  to  have  double  weight.  Another  consideration  strongly  con- 
firms our  view.  When  Paul  has  to  quote  Deut.  xx.  4,  in  1  Cor.  ix, 
he  prefaces  it  by  the  formula,  "  It  is  written  in  the  law  of  Moses." 
When  he  has  to  adduce  the  same  passage  in  1  Tim.  v,  he  drops  the 
formula,  "  It  is  written  in  the  law  of  Moses,"  and  uses  the  more  general 
one,  "  The  Scripture  saith."  The  latter  formula  allows  us  to  sub- 
sume the  saying,  "  The  labourer  is  worthy  of  his  hire,"  as  included 
under  what  "  Scripture  saith."  Its  subsumption  would  have  been 
excluded  if  the  prefatory  formula  in  1  Cor.  ix.  9  had  been  retained. 
The  change  is  significant  and  should  impress  every  one.  Thus 
Paul's  very  remarkable  association  and  use  of  the  Law  and  the 
Gospel  in  1  Cor.  ix.  9,  14,  reappear  in  1  Tim.  v.  18,  in  a  way  which 
could  not  be  the  work  of  an  imitator.  It  would  be  to  make  Paul 
violate  the  clear  usus  loquendi  of  the  New  Testament  in  the  quota- 
tion of  combined  Scriptures,  and  what  is  worse,  to  impute  to  the 
apostle  gross  forgetfulness,  to  make  him  reproduce,  in  a  later  epistle, 
as  a  commonplace  observation  which  his  Lord  had  never  used,  a 
saying  which,  when  writing  to  the  Corinthians,  he  had  referred  to 
as  having  proceeded  out  of  the  mouth  of  Christ.     And  this  saying 


THE  CANON  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  13 

of  Christ  is  one  which  Paul  would  be  likely  to  refer  to  frequently,  as 
it  decided  an  important  practical  question  which  would  necessarily 
arise  in  every  church  which  the  apostle  organized. 

We  conclude  that  when  Paul  wrote  from  Eome  his  first  Epistle 
to  Timothy,  who  was  at  Ephesus,  the  Gospel  of  Luke  must  have  been 
recognized  as  Scripture  by  the  Christians  of  both  these  cities.  This 
is  a  fact  of  the  greatest  moment  in  the  history  of  the  Canon  of  the 
New  Testament.  It  shows  how  utterly  false  is  the  teaching  of  those 
critics  who  seem  never  weary  of  repeating  that  the  designation 
ypayy,  or  Scripture,  was  not  applied  to  the  New  Testament  till  after 
the  middle  of  the  second  century.  John  wrote  in  Ephesus  his  Gos- 
pel, which  supposes  on  the  part  of  its  readers  a  knowledge  of  the 
evangelical  narrative  which  we  have  in  the  Synoptics*  What  is 
written  in  its  very  first  chapter  (vers.  19-34)  is  intelligible  only  to 
those  who  were  previously  acquainted  with  the  history  of  John  the 
Baptist  and  his  baptism  of  Jesus.  If  Luke's  Gospel  had  alreadv  the 
authority  and  designation  of  Scripture  at  Ephesus,  it  goes  without 
saying  that  the  Apostle  John's  Gospel,  when  it  appeared  there,  would 
at  once  be  invested  with  equal  dignity.  The  effort,  we  are  aware, 
is  made  to  postdate  the  composition  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  But 
there  are  many  signs  in  them  of  the  early  date,  and  of  the  historical 
character  of  their  contents,  some  of  which  have  been  well  pointed 
out  by  Dr.  Sanday.f  The  narratives  in  the  first  three  Gospels  may 
be  shown  to  be  altogether  in  accordance  with  the  tradition  of  the 
Church  that  they  were  written  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 
Critics,  indeed,  have  fixed  on  such  passages  as  Luke  xix.  43,  41,  and 
xxi.  24  as  indications  of  a  late  date;  and  Dr.  Sanday  is  willing  to  con- 
cede that  "  slight  alterations  "  have  been  introduced  defining  the  allu- 
sions to  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  in  accordance  with  the  history  of  that 
event.  But  this  concession  is  improperly  made  owing  to  the  influ- 
ence of  a  theory  that  our  Lord  could  not,  or  did  not,  utter  a  definite 
prediction.  Such  negative  criticism  has  in  this  particular  point 
been  excellently  answered  by  Nosgen.^;  It  omits  entirely  to  ex- 
plain why  the  evangelists,  who,  according  to  it,  must  have  written 
down  Christ's  announcement  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  after 
that  catastrophe,  do  not  point  out  the  fulfillment  of  this  prophecy  of 
Christ  as  emphatically  as  they  do  the  fulfillment  of  Old  Testament 
prophecies  in  Him. 

The  sources  of  Luke's  Gospel  were  (Luke  i.  2)  the  statements 
made  by  those  who   "  from  the  beginning  were  eyewitnesses  and 

*  The  words  [ibpou  vdpdou  TziGTUrfi,  which  are  common  to  Mark  xiv.  3  and 
John  xii.  3,  make  it  hard  to  believe  that  the  writer  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  was 
not  acquainted  with  the  Second. 

f  Inspiration,  Lecture  vi.  %  Oeschichte  Jesu  Christi,  i,  pp.  31,  32. 


14  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

ministers  of  the  Word."  Irenasus  believed  that  it  is  the  apostles 
who  are  thus  described  by  Luke.*  He  writes  (Bk.  iii,  chap,  xiv, 
sec.  2) :  "  Thus  did  the  apostles  simply  and  without  respect  of  per- 
sons, deliver  to  all  what  they  had  themselves  learned  from  the 
Lord.  Thus  also  does  Luke,  without  respect  of  persons,  deliver  to 
us  what  he  had  learned  from  them,  as  he  has  himself  testified,  say- 
ing, '  Even  as  they  delivered  them  unto  us,  who  from  the  beginning 
were  eyewitnesses  and  ministers  of  the  Word.'  "  What  Luke  wrote 
down  from  his  sources  Paul  stamped  with  the  signature  of  Scrip- 
ture. His  Gospel  thus  comes  to  us  clothed  with  apostolic  authority. 
This  principle  of  apostolic  authority  was  the  dominant  one  in  the 
formation  of  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament,  and  to  this  doctrine 
Dr.  Sanday  assents :  "  The  general  test  which  determined  the  place 
of  a  book  in  the  New  Testament  was  no  doubt  apostolicity"^  He 
proceeds  to  cite  the  Muratorian  Fragment,  Tertullian  and  Irenseus 
as  witnesses  to  the  truth  of  this  position.  But  Zahn  opposes  it  with 
all  decision.:}:  We  have  already  stated  how  Zahn  explains  the  for- 
mation of  the  New  Testament  Canon.  According  to  him  the  books 
now  comprised  in  it  came  through  use  in  the  Church  gradually  to 
obtain  a  place  in  the  sacred  collection  of  canonical  Scriptures. 
But  Zahn  supplies  the  means  of  refuting  his  own  theory.  He  him- 
self informs  us  §  that  Clement  of  Rome  and  Hermas  cite  as  Holy 
Scripture  apocryphal  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  which  were 
not  read  in  Christian  worship.  He  shows  |  that  Origen  could  main- 
tain the  genuineness,  inspiration  and  authority  of  Jewish  writings, 
which  were  not  authorized  to  be  read  in  public.  Zahn  makes  men- 
tion of  Didymus  of  Alexandria,  at  the  close  of  the  fourth  century, 
openly  alleging  that  an  epistle,  which  was  publicly  read  in  churches, 
was  neither  genuine  nor  canonical.^"  We  have,  too,  in  Eusebius,** 
an  extract  from  a  letter  in  the  reign  of  Marcus  Aurelius,  addressed 

*  Eusebius  {H.  E.,  iii,  xxiv,  15),  likelrenreus,  makes  the  apostles  the  sources  of 
the  "accurate  account  which  Luke  delivered  in  his  own  Gospel."  No  forcing  is 
done  to  the  language  employed  by  Luke  in  the  preface  of  his  Gospel  in  drawing 
from  it  this  meaning.  To  whom  but  the  apostles  does  the  description  exactly 
aPPly.  "They  who  from  the  beginning  were  eyewitnesses  and  ministers  of  the 
word  ?"  Luke  in  the  Acts  emphasizes  these  two  characteristic  marks  of  the  apos- 
tles. As  to  their  being  accredited  eyewitnesses,  see  Acts  i.  2,  3,  21,  22,  x.  41. 
Again,  "  The  ministry  of  the  word  "  was  regarded  by  the  apostles  as  their  office 
preeminently  (Acts  vi.  4).  To  fit  them  for  this  ministry  the  Lord  kept  the  twelve 
with  Him  whom  He  appointed  (Mark  iii.  14).  None  but  the  apostles  could  be 
properly  described  as  either  eyewitnesses  or  ministers  of  the  word  from  the 
beginning,  still  less  as  both  eyewitnesses  and  ministers  of  the  word  diz  dpp^. 

t  Inspiration,  p.  47. 

%  Oeschichte  des  Kanons  des  Neuen  Testaments,  i,  p.  477,  sq. 

§i,  p.  961.  «[i,  p.  312. 

||  i,  p.  127.  **H.  E.,  iv,  23. 


THE  CANON  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  15 

by  Dionysius,  bishop  of  Corinth,  to  Soter,  bishop  of  Rome,  in  which 
he  says :  "  To-day  we  have  passed  the  Lord's  holy  day,  in  which  we 
have  read  your  epistle.  From  it,  whenever  we  read  it,  we  shall 
always  be  able  to  draw  advice,  as  also  from  the  former  epistle  which 
was  written  to  us  through  Clement."  Yet  these  epistles  of  Clement 
and  Soter,  though  read  on  Sunday  in  the  church  of  Corinth,  were 
not  received  into  the  Canon.  And  we  might  instance  the  fact  that 
in  the  public  worship  of  the  English  Episcopal  Church  books  have 
been  regularly  read  for  instruction,  to  which  canonical  authority  was 
expressly  disallowed.  Such  facts  are  fatal  to  the  theory  of  Zahn 
touching  the  rise  and  growth  of  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament. 

It  cannot  compete  with  another  theory  already  mentioned,  which 
prevailed  in  the  early  Church,  and  which  can  be  shown  to  be  fully 
sanctioned  by  the  teaching  of  the  New  Testament.  This  theory  is  • 
that  the  apostles,  the  divinely  appointed  founders  of  the  Church 
(Eph.  ii.  20 ;  Rev.  xxi.  14)  gave  to  it  the  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment as  an  authoritative  and  divine  rule  ;  and  that  these  books, 
when  all  collected,  formed  with  the  Old  Testament  a  complete  Bible. 
Christ  kept  the  apostles  with  Him  throughout  His  ministry,  that 
they  might  be  able  to  bear  witness  of  Him  (John  xv.  27).  He 
promised  that  the  Holy  Spirit  would  speak  in  them  (Matt.  x.  19, 
20) ;  that  the  Spirit  would  teach  them  all  things  and  bring  to  their 
remembrance  all  that  Christ  said  to  them  (John  xiv.  26).  After 
His  resurrection  He  said  to  them  :  "  As  my  Father  hath  sent  me 
even  so  send  I  you"  (John  xx.  21).  And  in  telling  them  of  their 
mission  He  declared  that  a  more  dreadful  sentence  would  be  pro- 
nounced in  the  day  of  judgment  on  those  who  would  not  receive 
them  than  on  the  most  wicked  men  who  had  lived  before  the 
coming  of  Christ  (Matt.  x.  14,  15).  The  promised  Spirit  was  j 
imparted  to  the  apostles ;  and  they  could  say  of  the  things  of 
God  which  they  spake :  "  Which  things  also  we  speak,  not  in 
words  which  man's  wisdom  teacheth,  but  which  the  Spirit 
teacheth"  (1  Cor.  ii.  13).  The  word  which  they  delivered  was 
"  in  truth  the  Word  of  God  "  (1  Thess.  ii.  13).  They  could  tes- 
tify of  the  Gospel  which  they  preached  that  it  was  neither  received 
from  man  nor  taught,  but  that  it  came  through  revelation  of  Jesus 
Christ  (Gal.  i.  12).  They  spoke  with  all  authority  :  "  He  that 
knoweth  God,  heareth  us;  he  who  is  not  of  God  heareth  us  not" 
(1  John  iv.  6).  The  commandment  of  the  Lord  through  the  apos- 
tles is  according  to  2  Pet.  iii.  2  as  sacred  as  the  words  spoken  by 
the  prophets.  What  Dr.  Sanday  affirms  of  Paul  is  true  of  all  the 
apostles :  "  He  is  evidently  as  sure  as  any  of  the  Old  Testament 
prophets  was  ever  sure,  that  the  message  which  he  delivered  was  no 
invention  of  his  own,  that  it  was  not  commended  by  ability  and 


16  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

skill  on  his  part,  but  that  he  was  merely  an  instrument  in  the  hand 
of  God,  that  anything  which  he  had  to  say  came  from  God."*  If 
this  is  a  true  representation,  then  what  the  apostle  did  say  was  to 
be  received  as*  coming  from  God  and  not  inferior  in  authority  to 
anything  contained  in  the  Old  Testament. 

As  to  the  distinction  attempted  to  be  drawn  between  the  spoken 
and  the  written  words  of  the  apostles,  as  if  the  latter  were  inferior 
to  the  former,  it  will  not  bear  a  moment's  examination/}-  Paul 
would  have  his  written  word  to  be  equally  believed  and  held  fast 
with  his  spoken  word  (2  Thess.  ii.  15).  A  man  who  should  refuse 
to  attend  to  the  apostle's  instruction  given  in  an  epistle  was  to  be 
excluded  from  the  fellowship  of  the  Church  (2  Thess.  iii.  14).  The 
directions  which  Paul  communicated  in  writing  he  would  have  to 
be  received  as  the  commandment  of  the  Lord  (1  Cor.  xiv.  37).  And 
not  to  multiply  proofs,  we  find  the  letters  which  John  wrote  to  the 
seven  churches  of  Asia  spoken  of  as  what  the  Spirit  said  unto  the 
churches  (Rev.  ii.  and  iii). 

In  opposition  to  this  doctrine  that  the  apostles  were  empowered 
to  give  the  Church  an  authoritative  rule  of  faith  and  practice, 
Reuss  contends  that  "  all  Christians  had  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  is, 
were  inspired  from  the  same  source  and  for  the  same  end.":];  Such 
possession  by  Christians  of  this  universal  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
rendered  them,  we  are  told,  above  the  need  of  any  such  external 
authority  as  a  New  Testament.  This  is  the  doctrine  which  is  so 
zealously  advocated  by  Harnack,  and  which  Prof.  A.  C.  McGiffert 
seems  to  consider  it  his  mission  to  propagate  in  this  country.  It  is  an 
utterly  mistaken  doctrine.  A  man  could  have  the  Spirit  of  Christ, 
without  which  he  is  none  of  His,  without  being  endowed  with 
extraordinary  charisms.  Immediately  after  the  monstrous  paradox 
which  we  have  just  quoted,  Reuss  adds:  "This  (viz.,  having  the 
Spirit  so  as  to  be  inspired  and  not  to  need  a  New  Testament  for 
instruction)  constitutes  the  nature  of  Christianity."  The  fruit  of 
the  Spirit  which  constitutes  essential  Christianity   as  described  by 

*  Inspiration,  p.  334. 

fit  was  Spinoza  who  first  gave  currency  to  this  distinction.  We  doubt  if 
Reuss  was  in  earnest  when  he  said  :  "  Bei  der  Aufziihlungder  Charismen  (Rom. 
xii  ;  1  Cor.  xii)  keine  besondere  Qabe  der  Schriftstellerei "  {Gesch.  der  heil. 
Schriftm  N.  T.,  §  285,  A,  3).  We  are  not  informed  that  the  art  of  compo- 
sition was  imparted  as  a  gift  to  the  writers  of  the  Old  Testament.  Each 
of  them  was  allowed  to  use  his  natural  style  of  speech.  Yet  what  they  wrote 
was  inspired  Scripture,  and  was  received  as  such  by  our  Lord  and  His  apostles. 
Dr.  Sanday  acknowledges  that  the  written  word  of  the  apostles  "  would  count 
for  just  as  much  as  their  spoken  word  "  {Inspiration,  p.  866).  It  is  only  a  dic- 
tate of  common  sense  to  which  Prof.  H.  P.  Smith  gives  expression  in  saying  : 
"  The  authority  of  an  apostle  was,  of  course,  the  same  to  command  by  letter  as 
to  command  by  word  of  mouth  "  {Inspiration  and  Inerrancy,  p.  250). 

X  Gesch.  der  heil.  Schriftm  N.  T.,  §  285,  A.  2. 


TEE  CAN  ON  OF  TEE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  17 

Paul  (Gal.  v.  6,  22-24)  is  of  a  very  different  nature  (cf.  Matt.  vii. 
22,  23).  The  extraordinary  gifts  of  the  apostolic  age  were  not  im- 
parted alike  to  all  Christians,  but  were  distributed  according  to  the 
will  of  the  Spirit  (1  Cor.  xii.  11),  and,  as  a  rule,  in  connection  with 
the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  apostles.  The  Church  of  Corinth, 
was  inferior  to  no  other  Church  in  the  special  endowments  of  utter- 
ance and  knowledge  (1  Cor.  i.  5-7).  Yet  the  apostle  in  his  two 
epistles  to  that  Church  speaks  as  one  who  had  the  exclusive 
power  to  settle  how  the  Church  of  Christ  should  be  ordered  (2  Cor. 
xiii.  10).  He  claimed  that  the  Lord  had  given  him  such  authority. 
A  man  who  thought  himself  to  have  the  gift  of  the  Spirit,  or  to  be 
a  prophet,  was  required  to  make  good  such  a  claim  by  taking 
knowledge  of  the  things  which  the  apostle  wrote,  that  they  were 
the  commandments  of  the  Lord  (1  Cor.  xiv.  37).  This  is  the  doc- 
trine of  enthusiasm  with  a  vengeance — that  all  Christians  were  so 
inspired  by  the  Spirit  as  to  need  no  apostolic  writing  for  their  in- 
struction !  Then  why  did  Paul  take  needless  pains  to  instruct  them 
by  writing  to  them  ?  Why  did  the  Corinthian  Christians  find  it 
necessary  to  consult  Paul  and  to  seek  direction  from  him  (1  Cor. 
vii)?  How  did  it  happen  that  they  did  not  know  the  proper 
course  to  be  pursued  toward  the  incestuous  member  (1  Cor.  v)  ? 
Why  did  Paul  take  upon  him  to  tell  them  what  must  be  done  by 
them  in  this  case  ?  Why,  again,  does  he  praise  the  Corinthians  for 
remembering  him  in  all  things  and  holding  fast  what  he  had  deliv- 
ered to  them  (1  Cor.  xi.  1)  ?  Was  ever  a  falser  or  more  foolish 
statement  penned  than  that  of  Reuss  ?  "  All  Christians  have  the 
Holy  Ghost — are  inspired !"  And  to  reiterate  such  nonsense  is  to 
show  one's  self  a  scholar  up  to  date,  an  advanced  theologian  !  One 
of  the  texts  which  Reuss  refers  to  as  proving  that  all  Christians 
who  have  the  Holy  Ghost  are,  eo  ipso,  inspired,  is  1  Cor.  iii.  16  : 
"  Know  ye  not  that  ye  are  a  temple  of  God,  and  that  the  Spirit  of 
God  dwelleth  in  you  ?"  Yet  in  the  beginning  of  the  same  chapter 
Paul  could  say  to  these  persons  in  whom  the  Spirit  of  God  dwelt : 
"  I  fed  you  with  milk,  not  with  meat ;  for  ye  were  not  yet  able  to 
bear  it :  nay,  not  even  now  are  ye  able."  Think  of  it.  Such  im- 
mature babes  in  Christ,  who  were  incapable  of  receiving  the  higher 
Christian  instruction  from  the  apostle,  being  privileged  with  ex- 
emption from  the  obligation  to  submit  to  the  external  authority  of 
apostolic  Scripture  !  Paul,  an  apostle  of  the  Lord,  who  received 
from  the  Lord  Himself,  not  only  the  Gospel  which  he  preached,  but 
the  truth  regarding  the  institution  of  the  Holy  Supper  which  he 
taught  the  churches  to  observe  (1  Cor.  xi.  23),*  could  say  that  the 

*It  is  painful  to  find  even  Nosgen  {Qeschichte  Jesu  Christi,  i,  p.  22)  making 
Paul  here  refer  his  knowledge  of  the  Supper  to  tradition.  On  the  contrary,  he 
declares  that  he  received  it  from  the  Lord. 

9 


18  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

other  apostles  imparted  nothing  to  him  (Gal.  ii.  6).  But  no  one 
else  outside  the  circle  of  the  Twelve  durst  use  such  language.  Are 
all  apostles  ?  No ;  but  only  those  whom  God  set  in  the  Church  to 
be  such  (1  Cor.  xii.  28). 

What  was  the  opinion  of  the  apostles  held  by  those  who,  as 
teachers  in  the  Church,  were  nearest  to  them  in  point  of  time,  we 
mean  the  apostolic  fathers?  "The  relation,"  says  Lightfoot,  "of 
these  writers  (Clement,  Ignatius  and  Polycarp)  to  the  canonical 
Scriptures  may  be  briefly  summed  up  as  follows :  (1)  They  assign  a 
special  and  preeminent  authority  to  the  apostles,  while  distinctly 
disclaiming  any  such  exceptional  position  for  themselves.  This  is 
the  case  with  Clement  (1  Cor.  v.  47),  and  Ignatius  (Rom.  iv)  speak- 
ing of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul,  and  with  Polycarp  (Phil,  iii)  speaking 
of  St.  Paul,  these  being  the  only  apostles  mentioned  in  their 
writings."*  We  have  studied  the  apostolic  fathers  with  the  view 
of  ascertaining  if  their  estimate  of  the  apostles  as  organs  of  revela- 
tion and  teachers  of  the  Church  was  at  all  lower  than  that  expressed 
by  the  best  Christian  writers  at  the  close  of  the  second  century  ; 
and  we  are  persuaded  that  in  the  subapostolic  age  the  apostles  held 
the  same  unique  position  which  was  assigned  to  them  by  Irenseus 
and  Tertullian  and  their  contemporaries.-]-  Want  of  space  hinders 
our  setting  forth  as  fully  as  we  had  intended  the  passages  which 
sustain  this  judgment.  Polycarp  in  his  epistle  to  the  Philippians 
(chap,  vi)  thus  writes :  "  Let  us  serve  Him  (Christ)  in  fear  and 
with  all  reverence,  even  as  He  Himself  has  commanded  us,  and 
as  the  apostles  who  preached  the  Gospel  unto  us,  and  the  prophets 
who  proclaimed  beforehand  the  coming  of  the  Lord."  Here 
the  teaching  of  the  apostles  is  put  on  the  same  line  with  that 
of  Christ  and  of  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament.  Ignatius  thus 
exhorts  the  Magnesians,  chap,  xiii,  "  Study,  therefore,  to  be  estab- 
lished in  the  doctrines  of  the  Lord  and  of  the  apostles "  {h  tot? 
86yi±aai  too  xupiou  xai  ru>v  aTtoardXiov).  The  doctrines  of  the  apostles 
are  thus  put  on  a  par  with  those  of  the  Lord.  Clement  of  Rome 
speaks  of  the  "  good  "  apostles  as  the  "  greatest  and  most  righteous 
pillars"  of  the  Church  (1  Ep.  v).     He  makes  the  apostles  in  their 

*  Lightfoot's  8.  Clement  of  Rome,  i,  p.  9.  A  man  of  discernment,  whether  a 
Christian  or  not,  must  perceive  the  immense  inferiority  of  the  works  of  the 
apostolic  fathers  to  the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament.  Sir  John  Luhbock 
thus  relates  his  experience  in  the  perusal  of  the  writings  of  the  former  :  "I 
must  humbly  confess  that  I  was  disappointed.  They  are  perhaps  all  the  more 
curious  from  the  contrast  they  afford  to  those  of  the  apostles  themselves."  (The 
Pleasures  of  Life,  iv. ) 

f  Prof.  H.  M.  Scott's  article  on  "The  Apostolic  Fathers  and  the  New  Testa- 
ment," in  this  Review  for  July,  1892,  may  be  profitably  studied  on  this  ques- 
tion. 


THE  CANON  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  19 

mission  stand  to  Christ  in  the  same  relation  in  which  Christ  stood 
to  God  (chap.  xlii).  Ignatius  writes  to  the  Eomans  (chap.  iv)? 
"  Not  as  Peter  and  Paul  do  I  command  jou,  for  they  were  apostles." 
As  Zahn  observes,  to  command,  biaxaaataOa^  becomes  apostles 
only,  according  to  Ignatius  (Trail,  iii ;  Rom.  iv ;  Trail,  vii).  But 
we  may,  without  giving  further  references  to  passages  in  the  apos- 
tolic fathers,  translate  a  brief  extract  from  Zahn,  describing  what 
is  said  of  the  apostles  as  organs  of  revelation  in  subapostolic  litera- 
ture. Zahn  in  footnotes  furnishes  dicta  probantia  of  his  statements. 
"  Their  having  received  their  commission  immediately  from  Christ 
is  on  a  par  with  the  sending  of  Christ  by  the  Father ;  is,  as  this,  a 
fact  belonging  to  the  history  of  revelation.  As  God  through  Christ 
acted  and  spoke,  so  did  Christ  through  the  apostles.  Thereby  the 
doctrines  and  instructions  of  the  apostles  are  placed  on  the  same 
line  with  those  which  were  communicated  immediately  by  Christ, 
and  by  God  through  the  prophets.  The  possibility  that  an  apostle 
could  have  erred  in  his  doctrines  and  instructions  addressed  to  the 
churches,  had  manifestly  no  place  in  the  circle  of  ideas  of  the  genera- 
tion that  succeeded  the  apostles."  * 

Papias,  whom  Irenaaus  makes  a  hearer  of  John  and  a  friend  of 
Polycarp,  reports  how  he  had  heard  an  elder  (one  who  belonged  to 
the  generation  that  had  conversed  with  the  apostles)  say  that, 
"  Mark  having  become  the  interpreter  of  Peter,  wrote  down  accu- 
rately whatsoever  he  remembered Wherefore  Mark  made  no 

mistake  in  thus  writing  some  things  as  he  remembered  them.  For 
of  one  thing  he  took  special  care,  not  to  omit  anything  he  had 
heard,    and  not   to   put  anything  fictitious   into   the   statements " 

*  "Die  Moglichkeit  dass  ein  Apostel  in  seinen  an  die  Gemeinden  gerickteten 
Lehren  und  Anweisungen  geirrt  haben  konnte,  hat  offenbar  im  Vorstellungs- 
kreis  der  nacbapostolisclien  Generation  keinen  Raum  gebabt  "  (Gesch.  desneutest. 
Kanons,  i,  p.  804).  Far  too  much  is  made  by  Dr.  Sanday  (Inspiration,  p.  303), 
of  the  fact  that  in  the  early  use  of  the  Gospels  they  are  not  quoted  with  verbal 
exactness,  as  if  this  looseness  of  quotation  were  evidence  that  the  Gospels  could 
not  have  been  held  by  those  employing  them  to  be  the  work  of  inspired  men,  or  to 
have  been  yet  invested  with  canonical  dignity.  Not  a  few  critics  have  argued 
from  this  freedom  in  quotation  that  other  Gospels  than  the  present  canonical 
ones  must  have  been  the  sources  drawn  from.  Against  such  reasoning  the 
example  of  Josephus  may  be  appealed  to.  That  he  believed  in  the  divine  and 
authoritative  character  of  the  Old  Testament  and  its  plenary  inspiration  will  be 
conceded.  Yet  he  could  quote  from  the  Old  Testament  with  at  least  as  much 
freedom  as  early  Christian  authors  have  quoted  from  the  New.  Witness  the  fol- 
lowing instance  :  "For,  says  the  Scripture,  A  woman  is  inferior  to  her  husband 
in  all  things,"  (Contra  Apion,  ii,  25).  Lightfoot  affirms  that  in  the  apostolic 
fathers  "there  is  not  a  single  evangelical  quotation  which  can  be  safely  re- 
ferred to  any  apocryphal  source.  The  two  exceptions,  which  were  at  one  time 
adduced  from  Barnabas,  have  both  vanished  in  the  fuller  light  of  'criticism,'  " 
(Lightfoot's  S.  Clement  of  Rome,  i,  p.  10). 


20  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

(Eusebius,  H.  E.,  iii,  39).  What  made  Mark's  Gospel  worthy  of 
confidence  in  the  eyes  of  Papias  was,  that  the  information  it  sup- 
plies was  drawn  from  an  infallible  source,  the  apostle  Peter.  It  is 
supposed  that  his  authority  was  unquestionable  ;  and  because  Mark 
faithfully  reported  what  Peter  had  orally  delivered,  his  Gospel 
could  be  relied  on  as  truly  relating  the  sayings  and  deeds  of 
Christ  as  far  as  they  were  contained  in  it. 

The  writer  of  the  epistle  to  Diognetus,  which  has  clear  indications 
of  an  early  date  (as  in  its  first  chapter  Christianity  is  spoken  of  as 
something  new,  which  "  has  only  now  entered  into  the  world  "), 
calls  himself  (chap,  xi)  "  a  disciple  of  the  apostles."  In  the  same 
chapter  he  coordinates  "the  tradition  of  the  apostles"  with  the 
Law,  the  Prophets  and  the  Gospels.  By  the  "  tradition  of  the 
apostles  "  we  are  not  to  understand  their  teaching  orally  trans- 
mitted, but  the  epistles  of  the  apostles.  Thus  in  chap,  xii  we  have 
a  quotation  from  1  Cor.  viii.  1,  adduced  in  this  way,  "  The  apostle 
says,  Knowledge  puffeth  up,  but  charity  edifieth."  * 

What  is  called  the  second  epistle  of  Clement  (which  is  not  an 
epistle  but  a  homily,  which  had  another  author  than  Clement,  as 
appears  from  the  complete  text  that  has  been  recovered),  was  com- 
posed probably  before  A.D.  140.  It  puts  the  authority  of  the 
apostles  on  a  par  with  that  of  the  Old  Testament,  as  even  Weiss 
admits  {Introd.  to  New  Testament,  p.  45),  in  placing  together  "  the 
Books  and  the  Apostles,"  rd  piRXia  xat  ol  axoaroXoi,  "  the  books  "  be- 
ing a  designation  of  the  Old  Testament. 

The  name  given  to  the  newly  discovered  Didache,  The  Teaching 
of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  is  significant.  This  "  oldest  church  manual," 
as  Schaff  calls  it,  is  put  forth  in  the  name  of  the  apostles,  thus  im- 
plying that  the  apostles  are  the  source  of  authoritative  teaching 
in  the  Church. 

Justin  Martyr  {Dialogue,  chap,  cxix)  makes  "  the  voice  of  God 
spoken  by  the  apostles  of  Christ "  the  foundation  of  the  faith  of 
Christians.  The  very  title,  "  Memoirs  of  the  Apostles,"  which 
Justin  gives  to  the  Gospels,  "  expresses,"  in  the  words  of  Harnack, 
"  the  judgment  that  everything  which  was  reported  of  the  Lord 
could  be  traced  directly  or  indirectly  to  the  apostles."f  In  the 
Muratorian  Fragment,  which  we  still  venture  to  think  is  most 
probably  placed  A.D.  170,  rather  than  A.D.  200,  the  sole  but  suffi- 
cient reason  for  the  exclusion  of  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas  from  a 
place  in  the  Canon  is,  that  it  belonged  to  an  age  subsequent  to  the 
time  of  the  apostles.     The  Fragment  says  of  it :  "  It  ought  to  be 

*It  is  proper  to  say  that  the  unity  of  the  Epistle  to  Diognetus  may  without 
excessive  skepticism  be  questioned. 
f  Outlines  of  Hist,  of  Dogma,  p.  89. 


THE  CANON  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  21 

read  ;  but  it  cannot  be  made  public  in  the  church  to  the  people, 
nor  placed  among  the  prophets,  as  their  number  is  complete,  nor 
among  the  apostles  to  the  end  of  time."  This  statement  proceeds 
on  the  principle  that  as  prophetic  authorship  was  the  criterion  of 
a  book  of  the  Old  Testament,  so  apostolic  authorship  (immediate 
or  mediate)  was  the  criterion  of  a  book  of  the  New  Testament.  The 
Fragment  connects  Luke  with  Paul,  in  whose  name  it  states  he 
wrote. 

Both  Irenseus  and  Tertullian  make  mention  of  the  relation  in 
which  Mark  and  Luke  stood  to  the  apostles  Peter  and  Paul  respec- 
tively. Irenaeus  {Against  Heresies,  Bk.  iii,  chap,  xi,  9)  calls  our 
four  Gospels  "  the  Gospels  of  the  Apostles,"  "  those  which  have 
been  delivered  to  us  from  the  apostles."  He  enjoins  (iv,  chap, 
xxxiv,  1),  "  Eead  more  diligently  the  Gospel  which  has  been  given 
to  us  by  the  apostles,  and  read  more  diligently  the  prophets."  Ter- 
tullian {Against  Marcion,  iv,  2)  says :  "  We  lay  it  down  as  a  first 
principle  that  the  Evangelic  Instrument  has  apostles  for  its  authors, 
on  whom  this  office  of  publishing  the  Gospel  was  laid  by  the  Lord 
Himself;  if  also  [it  includes  the  writings  of]  apostolic  men,  yet 
they  were  not  alone,  but  [wrote]  with  [the  help  of  J  apostles,  and 
after  [the  teaching  of]  apostles."*     "  Mark  and  Luke,"  says  Augus- 

*  "Constituimus  in  primis,  Evangelicum  Instrumentum  Apostolos  auctores 
habere,  quibus  hoc  munus  Evangelii  promulgandi  ab  ipso  Domino  sit  iniposi- 
tum.  Si  et  Apostolicos,  nontamen  solos,  sed  cum  Apostolis  et  post  Apostolos." 
Harnack  tries  to  show  that  Theophilus  of  Antioch  (A.D.  181)  occupied  a  very 
different  standpoint  from  Irenseus  and  Tertullian,  and  did  not  think  of  connect- 
ing the  divine  authority  of  Christian  writings  with  their  apostolicity.  "By 
nothing  is  it  indicated  that  for  Theophilus  the  value  of  the  writings  which  he 
coordinated  with  the  Old  Testament  consisted  in  their  being  apostolical"  (Das 
Neue  Testament  urn  das  Jahr  200,  p.  39).  But  Theophilus,  in  writing  to  the 
heathen  Autolycus,  would  naturally  not  think  of  appealing  to  the  authority  of 
apostles.  Irenseus  and  Tertullian  were  arguing  against  heretics.  The  way  in 
which  Theophilus  quotes  the  Pastoral  Epistles  discountenances  the  notion  that 
they  had  only  lately  come  to  be  regarded  as  invested  with  divine  authority  : 
"The  divine  word,  moreover,  commands  us  also  concerning  being  subject  to 
principalities  and  powers,  and  to  pray  for  them  that  we  may  lead  a  quiet  and 
peaceable  life"  (Ad  Autolycum,  iii,  14).  Here  we  have  a  combination  of  two 
passages  (1  Tim.  ii.  1,  2,  and  Tit.  iii.  1).  This  certainly  has  the  appearance  of 
treating  the  epistles  of  Timothy  and  Titus  as  belonging  to  a  long  established 
authoritative  rule.  Serapion,  who  was  bishop  of  Antioch  only  a  short  time 
after  Theophilus,  as  he  held  office  during  the  reign  of  Commodus,  thus  writes 
to  Christians:  "For  we,  brethren,  receive  both  Peter  and  the  other  apostles 
as  Christ  "  (Eusebius,  H.  E.,  vi,  xii,  3).  There  is  no  mistaking  the  significance 
of  this  statement.  It  is  a  curious  fact  that  Theophilus  does  not  apply  the  name 
ypa<prj  (Scripture)  to  the  New  Testament,  though  ascribing  to  it  plenary  inspira- 
tion. Yet  how  often  after  Reuss  ( Geschichte,  u.  s.  w.  §  303,  A)  are  we  told 
that  he  was  the  first  to  give  this  designation  to  the  New  Testament :  "  TPa9Vi 
ypa<pat,  Scriptura,  Scripturae,  auf  das  Neue  Testament  angewendet,  kommen  vor 
Theophil  nicht  vor."  Learned  critics  have  blundered  egregiously  in  reference 
to  the  application  of  the  name  Scripture  to  the  New  Testament. 


22  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

tine,  "  wrote  at  a  time  at  which  they  could  be  approved,  not  only  by 
the  Church  of  Christ,  but  by  the  apostles  themselves  yet  remaining 
in  the  flesh  "  {De  Gonsens.  Evang.,  lib.  iv,  c.  8). 

The  principle  of  the  apostolic  basis  of  the  Canon  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament comes  to  view  in  a  singular  manner  in  the  discrimination  in 
early  times  of  the  works  of  the  apostolic  fathers.  The  epistles  of  Bar- 
nabas and  Clement  and  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas  were  quoted  with 
more  respect  than  the  epistles  of  Ignatius  and  Poly  carp.  The  latter  are 
not  intrinsically  inferior  to  the  former,  nor  are  they  the  production 
of  less  renowned  authors.  But  there  are  indications  of  the  former 
having  been  considered  by  some  worthy  of  a  place  with  the  inspired 
Scriptures,  while  there  was  no  such  danger  in  the  case  of  the  latter. 
"Why  this  prizing  of  the  one  class  above  the  other  ?  The  explana- 
tion is  that  the  names  of  Clement  and  Barnabas  and  Hermas  occur 
in  the  New  Testament,  while  the  names  of  Ignatius  and  Polycarp 
are  not  mentioned  there.  The  thought  suggested  itself  that  the 
writings  of  men  known  to  the  apostles  might  have  received  their 
sanction.  Westcott  thus  expresses  his  view  :  "  Nor  was  it  a  mere 
accident  that  these  three  writings  occupied  a  peculiar  position. 
They  were  supposed  to  be  written  by  men  who  were  honored  by 
direct  apostolic  testimony.  But  the  letters  of  Polycarp  and  Igna- 
tius, whose  names  the  New  Testament  does  not  record,  were  never 
put  forward  as  claiming  canonical  authority.  And  thus  the  high 
estimation  in  which  the  works  of  Clement  and  Barnabas  and 
Hermas  were  held  becomes  an  indirect  evidence  of  the  implicit 
reverence  paid  to  the  apostolic  words,  and  of  the  apostolic  basis  of 
the  Canon."* 

The  books,  then,  received  into  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament 
were  held,  in  the  primitive  Church,  to  have  been  delivered  to  it  by 
the  apostles,  who  alone  had  authority  to  give  the  Church  an  in- 
spired rule  of  faith  and  practice.  We  have  sufficient  evidence  that 
this  was  the  principle  on  which  the  Church  proceeded  in  recogniz- 
ing the  canonicity  of  any  writing.  Now  the  New  Testament  testi- 
fies that  the  qualifications  of  the  apostles.of  Christ  to  be  the  organs 
of  divine  revelation  were  in  every  respect  as  sufficient  as  were  those 
of  the  Old  Testament  prophets.  They  were  adequately  endowed 
with  the  spirit  of  truth,  so  that  they  could  not  err  even  by  defect 
of  memory  (John  xiv.  26).  Even  if  it  should  be  the  case  that  the 
name  "Scripture"  was  not  extended  to  their  writings,  still  these 
writings  could  not  fail  to  be  regarded  as  in  no  wise  inferior  in  sa- 
credness  and  authority  to  what  was  called  Scripture.  But  we  have 
seen  that  the  New  Testament  itself  (1  Tim.  v.  18  ;  2  Pet.  iii.  15, 
16)  has  set  the  example  of  designating  the  writings  contained  in  it 

*  On  the  Canon,  Appendix  B. 


THE  CANON  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  23 

as  ypay-rj,  or  Scripture,  on  a  par  with  the  Old  Testament  *  In  every 
subsequent  age  this  example  was  imitated.  It  is  difficult  to  under- 
stand how  fair-minded  scholars  should  continue  to  repeat  the  state- 
ment of  Reuss  that  the  term  Scripture  or  Scriptures  was  not  applied 
to  the  New  Testament  before  the  time  of  Theophilus  of  Antioch. 
But  it  may  be  well  here  briefly  to  disprove  this  statement  by  giving 
instances  of  the  actual  application  of  the  name  Scripture  to  the 
New  Testament  in  every  generation  up  to  the  age  of  Theophilus, 
from  which  time  the  use  is  undisputed. 

Polycarp,  the  disciple  of  John,  wrote  his  Epistle  to  the  Philip- 
pians  shortly  after  the  martyrdom  of  Ignatius,  in  the  reign  of  Tra- 
jan ;  therefore,  not  later  than  the  death  of  that  emperor  in  A.D. 
117.  In  chap,  xii  he  combines  Ps.  iv.  5  and  Eph.  iv.  26  exactly  in 
the  way  in  which  two  passages  of  Scripture  are  combined  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  he  thus  introduces  the  complex  quotation,  "  Ut 
his  Scripturis  dictum  est."  Barnabas,  or  rather  Pseudo-Barnabas, 
whose  epistle  may  have  been  composed  in  the  first  century,  and  could 
not  have  been  written  far  on  in  the  second,  quotes  Matt.  xxii.  14 
with  the  formula  «?  ytypaicTai,  "  as  it  is  written  "  ;  which  will  be  ac- 
knowledged to  be  equivalent  to  calling  the  work  from  which  the 
quotation  is  taken,  "  Scripture."  f     The  so-called  Second  Epistle  of 

*From  a  regard  to  brevity  we  are  prevented  from  furnish  ng  here  a  complete 
proof  that  the  ypcupai  -Kpof-qruat  mentioned  in  Rom.  xvi.  26  are  Christian 
Scriptures,  and  not  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament. 

fWe  have  here  to  note  a  serious  error  in  Prof.  McGiffert's  translation  of  the 
Church  History  of  Eusebius,  p.  169.  There,  where  mention  is  made  of  evangel- 
ists in  Trajan's  time,  Eusebius  (Bk.  iii,  chap,  xxxvii,  2)  is  made  to  say  of  them  : 
"Starting  out  upon  long  journeys  they  performed  the  office  of  evangelists,  be- 
ing filled  with  the  desire  to  preach  Christ  to  those  who  had  not  yet  heard  the 
word  of  faith,  and  to  deliver  to  them  the  divine  gospels."  Instead  of  "to  de. 
liver  to  them  the  divine  gospels,"  the  translation  should  be,  "  to  deliver  [to 
them]  the  Scripture  of  the  divine  gospels"  (r^v  rwv  ??£uuv  suayyeXiu)v  xapadtduvac 
Ypa<prjv).  Closs,  in  his  German  translation  of  Eusebius,  has  a  note  on  this  pas- 
sage in  which  he  tells  us  that  Dr.  Paulus,  of  Heidelberg,  in  his  Exegetical  Hand- 
book (p.  14),  understands  it  to  mean  that  the  evangelists  had  orally  delivered 
what  is  written  in  the  divine  gospels  !  But  this  is  simply  to  explain  away  the  text 
in  the  well-known  manner  of  Paulus.  The  cautious  Lardner  observes  :  "1  think 
it  must  be  allowed  that  Eusebius  was  fully  persuaded  that  before  the  end  of  the 
reign  of  Trajan,  who  died  in  A.D.  117,  the  gospels  were  well  known  and  col- 
lected together  :  and  they  who  preached  the  doctrine  of  Christ  to  those  who 
had  not  heard  it,  carried  the  gospels  with  them,  and  delivered  them  to  their  con- 
verts. They  must  therefore  have  been  before  this  for  some  time  in  use,  and  in 
the  highest  esteem,  in  the  churches  planted  by  the  apostles."  Scholars,  as 
Lightfoot  has  shown,  have  made  an  unwarranted  use  of  the  silence  of  Eusebius 
in  their  destructive  criticism  of  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament.  It  is  only 
prejudice  that  keeps  them  from  frankly  admitting  his  clear  testimony  to  the  ex- 
istence of  our  gospels  in  a  written  form  in  the  reign  of  Trajan,  and  to  their 
standing  in  the  Church  at  that  time  as  "divine  "  and  "  Scripture." 


24  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

Clement  (ii.  4)  calls  Matt.  ix.  13  "  another  Scripture"  (iripa  ypa<prj), 
having  just  quoted  Isa.  liv.  1.  There  has  been  much  discussion  as 
to  whether  Hippolytus  can  be  relied  on  as  really  quoting  Basilides, 
the  Gnostic  heresiarch,  who  flourished  A.D.  125.  We  confess  that 
the  judgment  of  such  men  as  Zahn  and  Salmon,  who  refused  to  avail 
themselves  of  the  extracts  from  Basilides  in  the  Philosophumena  of 
Hippolytus,  rendered  us  very  suspicious  of  the  trustworthiness  of 
the  latter  in  the  statements  which  he  ascribes  to  the  great  Gnostic 
teacher.  But  Dr.  Sanday  *  has  no  doubt  that  Dr.  Drummond  has 
"  proved"  that  Basilides  is  truly  quoted  in  the  Philosophumena.  It 
this  is  so,  and  it  is  the  judgment  of  most  scholars,  then  we  can  affirm 
that  1  Cor.  ii.  13  is  quoted  by  Basilides  with  the  formula,  ^  rPa?^ 
Xiyzt,  "the  Scripture  says,"  and  other  passages  of  Paul's  epistles  are 
adduced  by  him  with  the  equivalent  formula,  "  as  it  is  written," 
w<s  yiypan-ai.  As  to  Justin  Martyr,  Dr.  Purves  observes  f  that  he 
"at  least  six  times  introduces  a  quotation  from  or  reference  to  the 
Gospels  with  the  sacred  formula,  '  it  is  written.'  "  It  may  be  stated 
that  Justin  is  accustomed  to  add  to  this  formula  the  designation  of 
the  book  where  it  is  written,  viz.,  in  "  the  Memoirs  of  the  Apostles." 
But  he  once  {Dialogue,  xlix)  uses  the  expression  yiypanrac,  "  it  is  writ- 
ten," absolutely,  to  introduce  a  quotation  from  Matt.  xvii.  13.  Hereby 
he  formally  quotes  the  gospel  of  Matthew  as  Scripture.  On  this 
mode  of  quotation  Zahn  $  makes  some  interesting  and  instructive 
remarks.  It  deserves  to  be  noted  that  not  only  the  sayings  of  the 
Lord  recorded  in  the  Gospel  are  treated  by  Justin  as  Scripture,  but 
even  such  an  observation  of  the  evangelist  as  this,  "  Then  under- 
stood the  disciples  that  he  spake  unto  them  of  John  the  Baptist."  § 
Of  the  Memoirs  composed  by  the  apostles,  Justin  says  (1  Apology, 
chap,  lxvi)  that  they  "  are  called  gospels  ;"  words  which  have  been 
gratuitously  pronounced  spurious.  That  these  Memoirs,  or  Gospels, 
of  Justin  were  the  same  as  our  canonical  Gospels  has  been  conclu- 
sively established,  if  indeed  doubt  were  previously  admissible,  by 
the  recovery  of  the  Diatessaron  of  Tatian,  Justin's  disciple.  It  is 
found  to  be  a  harmony  of  our  four  Gospels,  a  quotation  from  the 
first  chapter  of  John  standing  at  its  commencement.  We  need 
not  pursue  this  subject  further.  That  the  generation  of  writers 
succeeding  Justin  quote  the  New  Testament  freely  as  divine  Scrip- 
ture is  a  matter  too  plain  to  be  seriously  disputed. 

We  are  unable  here  to  discuss  adequately  questions  relating  to 

*  Inspiration,  p.  308.  t  The  Testimony  of  Justin,  p.  244. 

%  Qeschichte  des  Kanons,  i,  p.  483,  sq. 

§In  the  Commentary  on  John's  gospel  by  the  Valentinian  Gnostic  Heracleon, 
composed  circa  160-170,  or  a  little  after  Justin,  there  is  the  same  treatment  as 
in  Justin  of  the  words  of  the  evangelist  as  Scripture  equally  with  the  words  of 
the  Lord  Himself. 


TEE  CANON  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  25 

the  process  of  collecting  the  books  of  the  New  Testament.  Of 
course,  the  New  Testament  is  a  growth.  It  was  enlarged  by  the 
successive  addition  of  authenticated  apostolic  writings.  The  Church 
would  instinctively  desire  such  a  collection.  Polycarp's  letter  to 
the  Philippians  (chap,  xii)  informs  us  of  the  request  made  to  him 
by  these  Philippian  Christians  for  the  letters  written  by  the  martyr 
Ignatius,  a  request  which  Polycarp  was  able  to  satisfy.  In  his  epis- 
tles Ignatius  himself  is  at  pains  to  set  forth  how  far  above  his  words 
were  those  of  the  blessed  and  incomparable  apostles.  And  doubt- 
less the  possession  of  the  writings  of  the  holy  apostles  would  be  far 
more  eagerly  desired  by  Christians  than  those  of  Ignatius.  The 
Epistle  of  Polycarp  furnishes  impressive  testimony  that  he  must 
have  perused  the  greater  part  of  the  New  Testament.  His  epistle, 
written  only  a  few  years  after  the  death  of  the  apostle  John,  occu- 
pies only  three  pages  of  the  American  edition  of  the  ante-Nicene 
fathers.  Yet  it  contains  quotations  from,  or  clear  allusions  to  more 
than  one-half  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament.  That  Polycarp 
had  other  books  of  it  beside  those  which  he  had  occasion  thus  to  use, 
it  is  most  reasonable  to  suppose.  To  a  still  larger  number  of  the  writ- 
ings of  the  New  Testament,  as  Lardner  shows,  manifest  allusions 
can  be  traced  in  the  genuine  epistles  of  Ignatius.  "  Besides,"  says 
Lardner,  at  the  close  of  his  citations  from  Ignatius,  "  here  are  terms 
used  by  him  importing  a  collection  of  the  gospels  and  of  the  epistles 
of  the  apostles,  and  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  in  general." 
It  would  take  us  too  long  to  consider  particularly  the  passages 
in  which  Ignatius  is  justly  held  to  refer  to  well-known  collections 
of  sacred  Christian  books.  But  his  language  denotes  that  there 
were  such  collections ;  and  his  own  epistles  and  that  of  Polycarp 
prove  that  they  both  must  have  made  diligent  use  of  them.*  Their 
alluding  incidentally  to  so  many  books  of  the  New  Testament  sug- 
gests to  us  their  knowledge  of  more.  In  our  opinion  he  would  be  a 
rash  man  who  would  venture  to  deny  that  there  may  have  been 
known  to  Ignatius  and  Polycarp  every  book  in  our  present  Canon 
of  the  New  Testament.  That  there  are  now  in  it  some  books 
which  were  after  their  age  the  subject  of  controversy,  and  which 
were  in  the  time  of  Eusebius  reckoned  among  the  Antilegomena, 

*  Even  Holtzmann  concludes  that  both  Ignatius  and  Polycarp  had  in  their 
possession  the  full  collection  of  the  Epistles  of  Paul.  There  is  satisfactory  evi- 
dence of  Polycarp's  acquaintance  also  with  1  Peter,  1  John  and  Hebrews.  His 
use  of  1  John  may  be  considered  a  testimony  to  John's  gospel.  Ignatius 
certainly  knew  John's  gospel,  and  manifest  traces  of  the  influences  of  John's 
Third  Epistle  are  found  in  him.  But  few  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament 
can  be  said  to  be  altogether  neglected  in  the  extant  remains  of  the  apostolic 
fathers.  Zahn  finds  indications  of  the  influence  of  2  Peter  on  Clement  and 
Hernias,  and  Mayor  points  out  clear  allusions  to  the  Epistle  of  James  in  Clemens 
Romanus,  Hermas  and  the  Didache. 


26  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

does  not  show  the  unreasonableness  of  the  supposition  we  have 
made.  A  book  like  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  could  be  in  the 
Latin  Church  in  the  third  century  apparently  neglected,  and  in  the 
fourth  century  be  disputed  in  it,  as  Eusebius  and  Jerome  testify. 
Yet  it  is  certain  that  about  the  year  A.D.  97,  Clement,  in  his  First 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  or  rather  the  Church  of  Rome  in  whose 
name  Clement  wrote,  did  in  that  Epistle,  as  Eusebius  pointed  out, 
"produce  many  of  the  ideas  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and 
also  used  some  of  its  very  words."  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
must  have  been  well  known  and  esteemed  as  a  writing  of  the  high- 
est authority  in  the  Church  of  Rome  towards  the  close  of  the  first 
century.  But  for  a  time  it  was  in  disrepute  there.  Of  course,  its 
canonicity  is  acknowledged  there  at  the  present  time. 

One  good  service  which  the  great  Gnostic  heretic  Marcion  has 
done  the  investigator  of  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament  is,  that  he 
has  made  it  certain  that  the  Church  Catholic  had  a  Canon  before  he 
began  his  propagandism  in  Rome  about  A.D.  140.  The  crime  laid 
to  his  charge  would,  as  Reuss  owns,  have  been  absolutely  impossible 
at  a  time  when  there  were  only  anonymous  gospels  and  no  Canon. 
The  crime  of  which  he  was  accused  was  that  he  rejected  three  of  the 
gospels  in  use  in  the  Church  from  the  beginning,  and  mutilated  that 
of  Luke  that  it  might  be  in  harmony  with  his  system.  The  only 
apostle  whom  he  esteemed  free  from  Jewish  prejudice  was  Paul, 
and  ten  of  Paul's  epistles  were  selected  by  Marcion  to  form  his 
Apostolicon.  We  have  the  means  of  knowing  pretty  accurately 
how  much  of  the  gospel  of  Luke  Marcion  received.  Positive  and 
negative  critics  agree  surprisingly  on  this  point ;  and  they  have  re- 
duced to  a  compact  form  what  may  fairly  be  called  the  gospel  of 
Marcion  reconstructed.  That  our  canonical  gospel  of  Luke  is  the 
original  which  Marcion  must  have  had  before  him  is  a  matter  about 
which  no  candid  scholar  can  remain  in  doubt  who  has  made  a 
comparative  study  of  the  two.  The  investigations  of  Volkmar, 
Hilgenfeld  and  Zahn  have  settled  the  question  as  to  the  priority  of 
our  present  gospel  of  Luke,  or  that  which  Marcion  published. 
Marcion  evidently  went  to  work  by  abridging  freely,  and,  in  some 
cases,  altering  the  gospel  of  Luke  to  serve  his  purpose.  He  cut  out 
what  appeared  to  him  in  conflict  with  his  Gnostic  notions.  Having 
taken  the  trouble  to  compare  Marcion's  gospel  with  our  complete 
Luke,  we  are  perfectly  convinced  that  he  recast  the  latter  in  a  dog- 
matic interest.  Dr.  Sanday,  in  his  work  on  The  Gospels  in  the  Sec- 
ond Century,  has  done  more  than  this.  He  has  compared  the  parts 
of  Luke's  gospel  which  Marcion  rejected  with  those  which  he  re- 
tained, and  shown  that  the  two  agree  so  strikingly  in  style  and  vo- 
cabulary as  to  prove  the  identity  of  their  authorship.     Dr.  Sanday 


THE  CANON  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  27 

justly  claims  to  have  furnished  "  definite  proof  that  the  gospel  used 
by  Marcion  presupposes  our  present  St.  Luke,  in  its  complete  form, 
as  it  has  been  handed  down  to  us."  More  than  this,  Dr.  Sanday,  in 
the  above-named  book,  has  pointed  out  that  Marcion's  gospel  has  cer- 
tain peculiarities  of  text  and  various  readings,  which  indicate  that 
the  gospel  from  which  it  was  derived  must  have  already  passed 
through  a  long  period  of  transcription,  and  must  have  had  "an 
antiquity  fully  as  great  as  any  that  an  orthodox  critic  would  claim." 
It  need  not  be  said  that  if  the  gospel  of  Luke  had  not  been  for  a 
long  time  previously  held  sacred  in  the  Christian  Church,  Marcion 
would  not  have  thought  of  mutilating  it  for  use  in  the  sect  which  he 
founded.  His  Apostolicon,  which  is  only  a  mutilated  Canon  of  the 
New  Testament,  testifies  likewise  to  the  recognition  at  that  time  of 
a  larger  Canon  by  the  Church  Catholic.  Marcion  rejected  the  Old 
Testament,  and  maintained  that  the  God  of  the  Jews,  who  is  the 
Demiurge,  is  not  the  good  God  who  is  the  Father  of  Jesus  Christ. 
He  never  denied  that  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  were  written 
by  the  authors  to  whom  they  are  attributed.  He  rejected,  not  on 
historical,  but  on  dogmatic  grounds,  the  sacred  writings  which  he 
excluded  from  his  Canon. 

Every  one  who  reads  this  paper  should  know  that  in  the  days  of 
Eusebius  in  the  early  part  of  the  fourth  century  there  was  not  com- 
plete agreement  all  over  the  Church  in  regard  to  all  the  books 
which  ought  to  have  a  place  in  the  Canon.  To  present  fairly  the 
evidence  in  favor  of  each  of  the  few  books  now  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment which  were  for  a  time  disputed,  and  to  establish  the  right  of 
every  one  of  them  to  be  included  in  the  Canon,  would  prolong  this 
article  far  beyond  proper  limits.  If  any  one  should  contend  that 
there  are  New  Testament  apocryphal  writings  which  might  have 
been  admitted  into  the  Canon  on  as  good  grounds  as  some  writings 
that  are  now  in  it,  we  would  steadfastly  oppose  this  contention, 
whether  appeal  is  made  to  the  ground  of  intrinsic  excellence  or  to 
that  of  historical  evidence.  Dr.  Sanday  freely  admits  that  of  the 
mass  of  early  Christian  literature  the  Church  has  not  discarded 
"  one  single  work  which  after-generations  have  found  cause  to  look 
upon  with  regret."*  In  respect  to  the  one  book  now  in  the  Canon 
which  on  the  ground  of  paucity  of  outward  testimony  he  would  be 
disposed  to  exclude  from  it,  we  mean  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter, 
we  can  affirm  with  Dr.  "Westcott  that  its  canonicity  "is  supported 
by  evidence  incomparably  more  weighty  than  can  be  alleged  in 
favor  of  that  of  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  or  of  the  Shepherd  of 
Hermas,  the  best  attested  of  apocryphal  writings."  f  In  respect  of 
internal  evidence  the  disparity  between  Second  Peter  and  the  two 

*  Inspiration,  p.  27.  \  On  the  Canon,  Conclusion. 


28  TEE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

other  writings  specified  is  far  greater.  As  a  question  of  subjective 
criticism  the  cauonicitj  of  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter  has  nothing 
to  fear.  On  the  other  hand,  we  are  bold  to  affirm  that  no  intelli- 
gent minister  would  care  to  read  aloud  the  whole  of  the  Epistle  of 
Barnabas  or  the  whole  of  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas  before  a  Chris- 
tian congregation.  It  is  remarkable  how  little  external  testimony 
can  be  produced  on  behalf  of  some  of  the  choicest  profane  books  in 
existence.  "  There  is  no  reference  in  existing  literature  to  Thucy- 
dides,  the  chief  authority  for  the  history  of  Greece,  for  two  centu- 
ries after  his  death."*  Yet  who  could  read  the  seventh  book  of 
Thucydides,  and  doubt  that  it  is  authentic  history  ?f  There  is  no 
book  in  the  New  Testament  to  which  there  is  not  reference  in 
extant  literature  within  much  less  than  two  centuries  after  the 
death  of  its  author. 

But  we  cannot  here  enter  on  minute  details.  We  can  only 
briefly  indicate  the  final  settlement  of  the  Canon  of  the  New 
Testament.  Origen  (born  185,  died  253  or  254)  enumerates  all 
the  books  now  contained  in  it,  but  he  makes  mention  of  the 
doubts  that  prevailed  in  regard  to  certain  of  the  Antilegomena, 
which  doubts  he  may  to  some  extent  have  shared.  The  book 
which  after  his  time  was  most  opposed  was  the  Apocalypse,  though 
Origen  himself  believed  it  to  be  a  genuine  writing  of  John  the 
Apostle.  It  has  conclusive  early  external  testimony.  But  the 
use  made  of  it  by  the  Millenarians  excited  strong  prejudice  against 
it  in  certain  quarters,  and  it  was  excluded  from  some  lists  of  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament  in  which  all  the  other  books  are 
found.  Such  lists  in  which  the  Apocalypse  was  omitted  all 
emanated  from  the  Eastern  Church,  and  were  not  acknowledged  in 
the  West.  Perhaps,  we  can  think  of  no  man  who  had  better 
opportunities  of  knowing  the  usages  that  prevailed  in  the  fourth 
century  throughout  the  whole  Christian  world  than  Athanasius, 
"the  father  of  orthodoxy.''  With  the  churches  of  Africa,  Asia 
and  Europe  and  with  their  clergy  he  was  personally  acquainted 
and  he  was  well  versed  in  ancient  Christian  literature.  He  had 
sources  of  information  which  are  not  open  to  us.  In  his  "  Festal 
Epistle,"  of  the  year  367,  which,  as  Charteris  says,  "  may  be 
regarded  as  not  only  the  opinion  of  Athanasius  himself,  but  an 
official  announcement  of  the  common  conclusions  of  Christendom 
on  the  subject  of  the  Canon,"  he  gives  a  list  of  the  books  of  the 

*  Watkins'  Bampton  Lectures,  1890,  p.  139,  note. 

f  ' '  The  correspondence  of  Pliny  with  Trajan  depends  on  a  single  manuscript 
of  unknown  age  found  in  Paris  about  1500,  apparently  taken  to  Italy  in  the 
next  few  years,  used  by  several  persons  before  1508,  and  never  since  seen  or 
known.  In  spite  of  this  suspicious  history  the  correspondence  is  indubitably 
genuine  "  (Ramsay's  Church  in  the  Roman  Empire,  p.  196). 


TEE  CANON  OF  TEE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  29 

New  Testament  which  corresponds  exactly  with  the  one  now 
acknowledged  by  us.  After  having  set  forth  the  "  canonical  books 
which  have  been  delivered  down  to  us  and  believed  to  be  divine," 
he  adds :  "  These  are  fountains  of  salvation,  that  he  who  thirsts 
may  be  filled  with  the  oracles  contained  in  them.  In  these  alone 
the  doctrine  of  religion  is  proclaimed.  Let  no  man  add  to  them  or 
take  anything  from  them."  We  may  be  allowed  to  append  Lard- 
ner's  observations,  on  the  testimony  of  Athanasius:*"This  testi- 
mony of  Athanasius  to  the  Scriptures  is  very  valuable :  it  appears 
from  the  '  Festal  Epistle,'  and  from  his  other  works  that  he 
received  all  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  that  we  do,  and  no 
other,  as  of  authority.  And  considering  the  time  in  which  he 
lived,  the  acquaintance  he  had  with  the  several  parts  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church  at  that  time,  and  the  bishops  of  it  in  Egypt  and  its 
neighborhood,  in  Europe  and  Asia,  and  the  knowledge  he  had  of 
ancient  Christian  writings ;  it  must  be  reckoned  of  great  use  to 
satisfy  us,  that  notwithstanding  the  frequent  quotations  of  other 
books  in  the  writings  of  divers  ancient  Christians,  they  did  always 
make  a  distinction,  and  did  not  design  to  allege  as  of  authority  and 
a  part  of  the  rule  of  faith  any  books  but  those  which  were  in  the 
highest  sense  sacred  and  divine."*  At  the  close  of  his  chapter  on 
the  "  Disputed  Books  of  the  Canon,"  Westcott  makes  this  import- 
ant statement  as  the  result  of  his  investigations  :  "  Briefly  it  may 
be  said  that  wherever  the  East  and  the  West  entered  into  a  true 
union  there  the  Canon  is  found  perfect ;  while  the  absence  or 
incompleteness  of  this  union  is  the  measure  of  the  corresponding 
defects  in  the  Canon."  There  is  one  thing  which  should  count  for 
much  in  pondering  the  question  of  accepting  the  New  Testament 
which  we  now  have  in  its  totality.  "  No  one,  perhaps,  can  read  it 
as  a  whole,"  says  Westcott,  "  without  gaining  a  conviction  of  its 
unity,  not  less  real  because  it  cannot  be  expressed  or  transferred." 
The  evidence  by  which  its  authenticity  is  supported,  the  same 
writer  pronounces  "  more  complete,  more  varied,  more  continuous 
than  can  be  brought  forward  for  any  other  book."  Christian 
scholarship  is  not  required  by  any  criticism  that  has  yet  appeared 
to  discard  any  one  of  the  writings  contained  in  it.  On  the  con- 
trary, it  may  be  safely  affirmed  that  there  is  not  a  single  book  now 
in  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament  whose  position  in  it  has  not 
been  strengthened  by  modern  investigation  and  discovery. 

If  we  have  shown  by  a  catena  of  proofs  that  the  writings  of  the 
New  Testament  were  delivered  to  the  Church  as  divine  and 
authoritative,  and  were  so  regarded  in  the  apostolic  age  and  all 
throughout  the  second  century,  it  ought  to  be  apparent  how  false  is 

*  Works,  iv,  pp.  160,  161. 


30  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

the  theory  of  Harnack  that  it  was  in  the  latter  part  of  the  second 
century  that  they  were  first  suddenly  elevated  into  a  standard  of 
authority  equal  to  that  of  the  Old  Testament  Canon.  No  one  of 
the  writers  of  this  age,  in  which  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament 
is  said  to  have  suddenly  emerged,  takes  notice  of  so  momentous  a 
phenomenon.  It  is  absolutely  ignored.  Christian  authors  go  on 
the  assumption  that  the  writings  of  apostles  had  the  same  author- 
ity from  the  first  that  they  had  at  the  close  of  the  second  century 
when  their  canonical  sanctity  was,  as  Harnack  admits,  acknowl- 
edged in  the  Church.  Their  course  of  reasoning  against  Marcion, 
and  their  imputing  to  him  an  awful  crime  in  mutilating  the  Canon 
of  the  Church  before  the  middle  of  the  first  century,  ought  to 
satisfy  us  that  previous  to  this  time  a  more  extensive  Canon  was 
really  in  existence. 

But  we  cannot  close  without  referring  to  attempts  made  to  show 
that  the  New  Testament  itself  contains  evidence  that  its  authors, 
while  engaged  in  writing  it,  have  declared  their  consciousness  of 
their  want  of  plenary  inspiration,  and  that  they  display  defects  of 
logic  and  temper  which  betray  that  they  were  not  completely  under 
the  influence  of  the  Spirit  of  truth  and  holiness.  Dr.  Sanday  has 
very  prominently  set  forth  these  charges  as  of  long  standing,  and  he 
himself  assents  to  them  *  The  words  of  Paul  (1  Cor.  vii.  12), 
"  But  to  the  rest  say  I,  not  the  Lord,"  are  taken  as  a  plain,  un- 
qualified disavowal  on  his  part  that  Christ  was  speaking  in  him 
while  he  was  thus  writing.  But  we  need  only  consult  what  is 
written  in  the  tenth  verse  of  the  same  chapter  to  see  that  this  is  not 
the  apostle's  meaning.  "  But  unto  the  married  I  give  charge,  yea, 
not  I,  but  the  Lord,  That  the  wife  depart  not  from  her  husband." 
Dr.  Sandayf  admits  that  Paul  here  appeals  to  a  saying  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  which  He  had  uttered  on  earth.  Since  He  had  already  de- 
clared His  mind  against  divorce,  Paul  simply  denies  that  he  now 
first  reveals  what  must  be  the  law  in  the  Church  on  this  matter. 
As  in  1  Cor.  ix.  14,  he  here  falls  back  on  what  the  Lord 
had  laid  down  during  His  ministry  among  men.  The  custom  of 
quoting  the  sayings  uttered  by  Christ  during  his  earthly  ministry 
with  the  formula,  "  The  Lord  says,"  meets  us  often  in  the  writings 
of  the  early  fathers.  It  was  founded  on  apostolic  example.  But 
Paul  in  thus  speaking  was  far  from  denying  that  he  himself  had 
the  mind  of  Christ  or  the  Spirit  of  God  (1  Cor.  ii.  16,  vii.  40). 
However,  Paul's  language  in  1  Cor.  vii  has  been  already  in  this 
Review  adequately  vindicated  from  misinterpretation  -^  and  we  will 
not  discuss  it  further  here. 

*  Inspiration,  pp.  356-358.  f  p.  304,  note  1. 

X  See  Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Review,  October,  1894,  p.  624  seq.   The 


TEE  CANON  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  31 

"We  cannot  avoid  noticing  Dr.  Sanday's  argument,  that  Paul's 
inspiration  could  have  been  only  partial,  founded  on  his  supposed 
unworthy  outbreak  of  temper  in  Gal.  v.  12*     It  is  strange  that 
good  and  reverent  Christian  men  should  have  conceived  that  Paul 
here  expresses  the  wish  that  the  Judaizing  zealots,  who  would  com- 
pel Gentile  Christians  to  be  circumcised,  would  themselves  practice 
self-mutilation.     The  margin  of  the  Revised  Version  supports  this 
view.     But  observe  how,  in  ver.  2,  at  the  beginning  of  the  section 
which  closes,  in  ver.  12,  with  the  words  now  under  consideration, 
the  solemn  formal  statement  is  made,  "  Behold,  I  Paul  say  unto 
you."     He  is  speaking  deliberately  and  with  the  consciousness  of 
his  full  apostolic  authority.     If,  then,  he  employs  here  language 
unworthy  of  Christ's  ambassador  delivering  heaven's  own  message, 
he  cannot  be  excused  on  the  ground  that  he  was  off  his  guard  and 
would  not  wish  to  be  thought  responsible,  as  an  apostle,  for  what  he 
said.     Mark,  too,  the  style  of  speech  which  he  uses  in  what  imme- 
diately follows  the  supposed  dreadful  words  of  ver.  12 :  "  For  ye 
brethren  were  called  for  freedom ;  only  use  not  your  freedom  for 
an  occasion  to  the  flesh,  but  through  love  be  servants  one  to  an- 
other."    Does  this  look  like  the  language  of  a  man  who  had  just 
allowed  the  "flesh"  signally  to  overcome  him  and  had  given  a 
hideous  exhibition  of  an  unloving  spirit?     That  while  writing  such 
a  chapter  as  Gal.  v,  Paul  should  himself  indulge  a  temper  the  oppo- 
site of  the  love  and  meekness  and  long-suffering  which  he  incul- 
cates might,  even  from  the  standpoint  of  a  naturalistic  exegesis,  be 
deemed  in  the  last  degree  psychologically  improbable.     It  cannot 
be  questioned  that  it  is  no  far  fetched  interpretation  to  hold  that 
Paul,  in  ver.  12,  expresses  an  earnest  desire  that  the  men  who  were 
unsettling  the  Church  would   even  cut  themselves  off  altogether 
from  its  fellowship.     Then  they  could  not  work  like  leaven  in  it 
(cf.  ver.  9).     They  would  lose  their  influence  and  would  be  avoided 
as  dangerous  foes.     This  view  of  ver.  12  makes  it  connect  perfectly 
with  ver.  13.     The  Judaizing  troublers  of  the  Galatians  were  en- 
deavoring to  deprive  them  of  their  liberty  in  Christ.     If  they  drew 
off  from  the  Church,  Christian  people  would  be  free  to  enjoy  their 
liberty.     Thus  the  nexus  is  clear.     But  it  is  not  easy  to  see  how, 
by  practicing  self-mutilation,  the  troublers  of  the  Galatians  would 
enable  the  latter  better  to  enjoy  the  liberty  to  which  they  were 

article  by  Dr.  Purves  on  "  St.  Paul  and  Inspiration  "  in  this  Review,  January, 
1893,  will  bear  a  second  reading  ;  Witsius,  De  Apostolorum  in  docsndo  Infallibili- 
tate,  in  Miscell.  Sac,  Lib.  i,  cap.  xxii,  in  which  he  combats  Clericus,  meets  suc- 
cessfully objections  now  very  prevalent. 

*  Dr.  Sanday  twice  quotes  this  verse  to  prove  the  defectiveness  of  Paul's  in- 
spiration (Inspiration,  pp.  43  and  357).  Zahn  also  twice  refers  to  it  (Oesch.  des 
Kanons,  i,  p.  269,  and  II.  Beilage,  xiv,  10). 


32  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  AND  REFORMED  REVIEW. 

called.  That  causal  particle  "  for,"  which  joins  ver.  13  with  the 
preceding  wish,  clearly  supports  our  view  of  its  import*  Paul, 
then,  is  not  chargeable  with  using  what  Reuss  calls  "  a  frightful 
phrase,  which  shocks  our  sensibility."  If  time  permitted,  we  could 
show  that,  as  a  teacher  of  religion,  he  is  not  only  free  from  defects 
of  temper  that  would  militate  against  the  truth  of  his  inspiration  by 
the  Spirit  of  God,  but  that  he  is  also  free  from  defects  of  logic  that 
have  been  charged  on  him.  Interpreters  would  do  well  to  question 
their  own  perspicacity,  even  in  obscure  and  difficult  passages,  rather 
than  impute  intellectual  and  moral  deficiencies  to  one  who,  apart 
from  his  inspiration,  is  morally  and  intellectually  deserving  of  the 
highest  reverence. 

There  are  no  defects  of  logic  or  temper  exhibited  in  the  Pauline 
Epistles.  But  there  is  a  strong  human  element  in  them,  which  in  no 
way  lessens  their  claim  to  be  the  Word  of  God.  The  character- 
istics of  Paul's  personality  are  everywhere  apparent  in  them. 
He  does  not  present  a  dry  abstract  statement  of  divine  truth.  He 
enters  with  all  interest  into  the  circumstances  of  his  readers.  He 
adapts  his  instruction  to  their  peculiar  needs,  and  at  the  same  time 
enunciates  great  truths  and  principles  adapted  for  all  times.  He 
argues,  he  expostulates,  he  warns,  he  praises,  he  blames,  he  com- 
forts ;  he  makes  his  readers  sorry  when  it  is  necessary  for  their  good, 
and  is  himself  sorry  at  the  grief  which  his  rebuke  occasions.  He 
tries  each  fond  endearment  to  allure  his  converts  to  a  higher  and 
holier  life.  But  his  "  exhortation  is  not  of  error,  nor  of  unclean 
ness,  nor  in  guile."  There  are  those  who  have  reason  to  be  thank 
ful  that  it  has  pleased  God  to  reveal  the  Christian  faith  in  the  con 
crete  form  in  which  it  has  been  set  forth  in  the  Pauline  Epistles 
Here,  as  in  other  things,  the  foolishness  of  God  is  wiser  than  men 
If  the  seventh  chapter  of  1  Corinthians  has  been  the  occasion 
to  some  of  doubting  the  full  inspiration  of  the  apostle,  it  has  been 
to  others  a  blessed  means  of  strengthening  faith.  No  man  could 
persuade  us  that  it  is  a  forgery.  It  bears  the  inimitable  stamp  of 
truth  and  reality.  It  is  the  utterance  of  a  man  actually  dealing 
with  living  questions  about  which  he  had  been  consulted,  and  it 
must  have  first  seen  the  light  in  the  very  early  days  of  Christianity. 
Can  any  other  so  fitting  time  for  its  publication  be  imagined  ?  The 
statement  with  which  the  chapter  concludes  strikes  us  as  one  which 
only  Paul  could  have  made :  "  And  I  think  that  I  also  have  the 
Spirit  of  God."  This  is  not  a  confession  of  doubt,  nor  a  studied 
rhetorical  phrase,  but  such  a  natural  meiosis,  dashed  with  irony,  as 

*  May  we  not  see  in  axozcxpovTai,  of  ver.  12,  a  parononiastic  allusion  to  tyxoizTiD, 
in  ver.  7  ?  "  Who  did  hinder  you  {strike  or  cut  in)  that  ye  should  not  obey  the 
truth?"     "I  would  that  such  would  strike  or  cut  themselves  off." 


THE  CANON  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


33 


only  a  strong  man,  confident  of  the  justice  of  his  claim,  could  have 
written. 

Perhaps  it  may  be  allowable  to  make  an  allusion  here  to  the  per- 
sonal experience  of  the  writer  of  this  paper.  Before  entering  on 
the  Christian  ministry  he  had  committed  all  the  Epistles  of  Paul  to 
memory. .  It  so  happened  .that  curiosity,  and  possibly  a  more  laud- 
able motive,  led  him  to  engage  in  a  too  exclusive  study  of  unbeliev- 
ing authors,  especially  of  German  rationalists.  Difficulties  to  faith 
arose  which  he  could  not  then  solve.  He  was  in  danger  of  falling  into 
utter  unbelief  of  the  supernatural.  Every  support  of  faith  seemed 
to  sink  under  him.  He  first  gained  firm  footing  by  carefully  pon- 
dering the  character  of  Paul's  Epistles.  They  exhibit  such  hidden, 
undesigned,  yet  most  striking  coincidences  with  one  another  and 
with  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles ;  they  so  dovetail  into  each  other,  as 
Paley  has  illustrated,  in  many  particulars  that  could  not  have  been 
artificially  contrived,  as  to  guarantee  their  credibility.  They  are  so 
written  that  we  could  not  bring  ourselves  to  believe  that  they  are 
not  the  genuine  expression  of  a  good  man's  heart,  of  a  man  dealing 
with  facts  and  speaking  in  sincerity.  "  Was  there  ever,  in  truth," 
asks  Henry  Eogers,  "  a  man  who  could  read  the  appeals  of  Paul  to 
his  converts  and  doubt  either  that  the  letters  were  real  or  that  the 
man  was  in  earnest  ?  We  scarcely  venture  to  think  it."  We  are 
glad  to  be  able  to  adduce  this  testimony  from  Dr.  Sanday :  "  I  can- 
not imagine  that  a  conscientious  opponent  of  these  letters  who, 
when  he  had  laid  down  his  pen  would  turn  round  to  look  back  over 
the  arguments  by  which  he  had  been  led  to  deny  their  genuineness, 
could  honestly  say  that  they  were  conclusive."  *  For  ourselves,  we 
can  testify  that  it  was  the  irresistible  impression  made  on  us  by  the 
letters  of  Paul,  the  impossibility  of  conceiving  them  to  be  fictitious 
or  dishonest  compositions,  that  overcame  our  unbelief  at  an  impor- 
tant crisis  in  our  life.  When  we  were  once  firmly  convinced  that 
the  writings  ascribed  to  Paul  are  certainly  genuine,  and  that  we 
could  rely  on  their  historical  character,  it  was  not  difficult  to  be 
persuaded  that  their  author  was  right  in  thinking  that  he  had  the 
Spirit  of  God,  and  in  being  "  as  sure,  as  any  of  the  Old  Testament 
prophets  was  ever  sure,  that  anything  which  he  had  to  say  came 
from  God." 

Pittsburgh,  Pa.  DuNLOP  MOORE. 

*  Inspiration,  p.  337. 


II. 

SOME  KECENT  PHASES  OF  CHKISTIAN 
APOLOGETICS* 

A  STUDY  of  Christian  religious  and  theological  literature 
shows  that  there  are  two  questions  which  have  always  been 
regarded  as  of  supreme  importance  in  the  history  of  Christian 
thought.  These  are,  "What  are  the  true  and  necessary  or  essential 
contents  of  our  faith?  and,  What  is  the  true  and  sure  foundation  and 
justification  of  this  faith  ?  Or,  to  put  them  more  briefly  and  simply, 
"What  do  we,  what  ought  we  to  believe  ?  and  Why  do  we  believe  it  ? 
The  second  of  these  two  questions  lies  at  the  basis  of  all  that  has 
ever  been  done  in  the  department  of  Christian  apologetics.  From 
the  very  nature  of  the  case,  the  Christian  religion  has  had  to  con- 
tend with  objectors  and  opponents.  Such  high  claims  as  Chris- 
tianity makes  could  not  pass  unchallenged.  But  not  only  to  meet 
the  cavils  and  objections  of  opponents  of  the  faith,  important  as 
that  may  be,  but  also  to  satisfy  the  natural  and  legitimate  desires  of 
the  Christian  heart  and  the  Christian  mind  itself,  a  much  more  im- 
portant object,  men  have  attempted  to  formulate  a  firm  and  com- 
prehensive basis  of  Christian  certitude. 

Such  a  formulation,  however,  is  a  difficult  and  complicated  mat- 
ter. It  requires  much  preliminary  work.  It  involves  many  ex- 
traneous questions.  For  it  must  be  manifest  at  the  very  start  that 
the  study  of  this  particular  question,  On  what  grounds  do  we  be- 
lieve and  maintain  the  fundamental  and  distinctive  elements  of  our 
Christian  faith  ? — strikes  its  roots  into  deeper  grounds.  It  can  no 
more  be  considered  as  a  question  apart  by  itself  than  can  any  other 
religious  or  philosophical  question.  It  must  be  considered  in  vital 
connection  with  the  broader  questions  of  the  nature  and  origin  of 
religion,  the  existence  of  God  and  the  relation  of  things  human  and 
divine,  as  well  as  the  nature  of  human  knowledge  and  faith  as  such. 
A  follower  of  Schleiermacher,  who  substantially  identifies  religion 
and  pious  emotions,  who  finds  the  origin  of  religion  in  the  feeling  of 
absolute  dependence  upon  God  and  other  kindred  feelings,  and  who 

*Cf.  L.  F.  Stearns,  The  Evidence  of  Christian  Experience;  A.  B.  Bruce, 
Christian  Apologetics;  and  Julius  Kostlin,  Die  Begrundung  unserer  sittlich- 
religibsen  Ueberzeugung . 


i    PHOTOMOUNT    j 


Mcnuf  octur*ol  by 

GAYLORD  BROS.  Inc. 

Syracuse,  N.Y. 

Stockton,  Call?. 


DATE  DUE 

^ ** 

^** ****** 

1 

^Ui^^'******4*k 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  US    A. 

<?«iffS«W3M 


BS2320.M822 

The  beginning  and  growth  of  the  canon  of 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00051    1743 


fbn 


V, 


row 


to 


